To Fellow TBS'ers: Re-Ranking Recruiting Classes Survey Request

CokeGreaterThanPepsi

@alexis and @gladstone, can I count you two as in?

Gladstone

I'll probably have to respectfully decline, I'll be traveling most of January for work. I am intrigued though and again it's a great idea.

CokeGreaterThanPepsi

Gladstone said:

I'll probably have to respectfully decline, I'll be traveling most of January for work. I am intrigued though and again it's a great idea.

WDWYA

Gladstone

I never fault a kid for going to Stanford work over the Huskies TBSing

dnc

RoadDawg55 said:

Alexis said:

One question for the bored. How do you rate a guy, say like Timu for example, who plays at pretty much one level (kinda mediocre) for many years, compared to say a guy like Kasen, who is really good one year, and dog shit one year. Or like Kevin Smith, who blows up for his SR year but doesn't do much else. Is a 4 year contributor worth more than a 1 year stud?

Good question. That's part of the fun I think. I would rate Timu a 3, Smith a 3, and Kasen a 4. Smith could be a 4, but like you said, only one good season.

How about Colin Porter? Two year starter and good player before career ending injury. I think 4, but could see someone rating him a 3 or even 2 because of his limited time.

Kasen is too damn high.

He was never an all conference type player, even when healthy. He was an above average starter. Solid 3, maybe a 3.5 if we can do half poonts. No way he's a 4, at least not if we're using Dennis DeYoung's system.

I don't really think he's a 4 anyway. Looking at the history of UW receivers (last 25 years) here's how I'd rate them using DDY's system:

5 - Reggie Williams, Mario Bailey
4 - Jerome Pathon, Jermaine Kearse

IMO Kasen would be in the next group with Orlando McKay and ahead of Charles Frederick, Dane Looker, etc. Better than most 3's but not good enough to be a 4 to me.

RoadDawg55

dnc said:

RoadDawg55 said:

Alexis said:

One question for the bored. How do you rate a guy, say like Timu for example, who plays at pretty much one level (kinda mediocre) for many years, compared to say a guy like Kasen, who is really good one year, and dog shit one year. Or like Kevin Smith, who blows up for his SR year but doesn't do much else. Is a 4 year contributor worth more than a 1 year stud?

Good question. That's part of the fun I think. I would rate Timu a 3, Smith a 3, and Kasen a 4. Smith could be a 4, but like you said, only one good season.

How about Colin Porter? Two year starter and good player before career ending injury. I think 4, but could see someone rating him a 3 or even 2 because of his limited time.

Kasen is too damn high.

He was never an all conference type player, even when healthy. He was an above average starter. Solid 3, maybe a 3.5 if we can do half poonts. No way he's a 4, at least not if we're using Dennis DeYoung's system.

I don't really think he's a 4 anyway. Looking at the history of UW receivers (last 25 years) here's how I'd rate them using DDY's system:

5 - Reggie Williams, Mario Bailey
4 - Jerome Pathon, Jermaine Kearse

IMO Kasen would be in the next group with Orlando McKay and ahead of Charles Frederick, Dane Looker, etc. Better than most 3's but not good enough to be a 4 to me.

Disagree, but I understand where you are coming from. 3.5 is probably more accurate, but we can't do half points. I can't rate him the same as Timu.

When Kasen was a freshman, he was the only guy that made plays against Oregon. He was the best player on the field that day. He had a good freshman year and was the #2 WR behind Kearse. That team had other good WR's too, enabling Kasen to be worked in slowly. His stats weren't far behind Kearse's.

Good sophomore year. Shitty OL hurt the downfield passing game, although he also got a lot of targets because ASJ and him were the only options.

Solid junior year. Made multiple incredible, game saving catches against Stanford.

Lost senior year. He was an NFL player before the injury, made big catches, and was productive. Was about the only big game player under Sark.

H_D

Gladstone said:

I never fault a kid grown man for going to Stanford work hanging out in his mom's basement over the Huskies TBSing

Crisped

LoneStarDawg

I think we should all decide how we want to rank the players and if we have enough of a sample set it will all sort out in the end.

for me, I'm going to focus simply on what the player meant to UW once its all said and done.

its all in retrospect, total body of work, based off of accomplishment not NFL draft potential, no excuses, no passes for injuries, what did they do while at UW, period. There will be some tough breaks (pun intended Kasen).

guys like gilliland are a 1 because they were a waste of a scholarship. callier is a fucking 2 because he never started and never had a significant impact, timu is a 3 because he started multiple years but teetered between asset and liability which shouldn't happen to a senior, and Sean Parker is a 4 because he started multiple years and was a strength but not a superstar. Shelton and Kikaha are 5s.

CokeGreaterThanPepsi

That's basically how I will do it, "what was their contribution to UW" will be the question I ask myself. Some will just define contribution different though, and that is fine. I think we will have 20 or do respondents, so I am pretty happy with that sample set.

Tequilla

I will weight players that were multi-year contributors far more favorably than guys that just blew up with 1 really good year.