To Fellow TBS'ers: Re-Ranking Recruiting Classes Survey Request
Comments
-
I don't get why people knock callier so much. He would have easily been our best rb early in the season until d wash figured it out. He catches passes out of the back field and knows how to see a hole. He's better than a 2, that's for certain.
-
Callier's the definition of a 2.5 guy to me. He'll never be a full blown starter but he filled a role (particularly when healthy) of being the 2nd RB and a reasonable option on 3rd downs as a RB. To me a 2 is a guy that was more or less a warm body and not much of a contributor on the field. I see value in guys that are important backups and play on special teams.Doogles said:I don't get why people knock callier so much. He would have easily been our best rb early in the season until d wash figured it out. He catches passes out of the back field and knows how to see a hole. He's better than a 2, that's for certain.
-
He was starting over Sankey before injury. He has a great ypc, i don't think we've ever seen him play enough to write him off as nothing more than a backup.Tequilla said:
Callier's the definition of a 2.5 guy to me. He'll never be a full blown starter but he filled a role (particularly when healthy) of being the 2nd RB and a reasonable option on 3rd downs as a RB. To me a 2 is a guy that was more or less a warm body and not much of a contributor on the field. I see value in guys that are important backups and play on special teams.Doogles said:I don't get why people knock callier so much. He would have easily been our best rb early in the season until d wash figured it out. He catches passes out of the back field and knows how to see a hole. He's better than a 2, that's for certain.
He had Polk then Sankey to compete with. 2 of the better backs in uw history. At the very least he's a great change of pace back, but I'm not going to say that is his ceiling when all he's done is produce. He's a 3. -
If I was deciding between a 2 or a 3 for Callier, it'd definitely be a 3.Doogles said:
He was starting over Sankey before injury. He has a great ypc, i don't think we've ever seen him play enough to write him off as nothing more than a backup.Tequilla said:
Callier's the definition of a 2.5 guy to me. He'll never be a full blown starter but he filled a role (particularly when healthy) of being the 2nd RB and a reasonable option on 3rd downs as a RB. To me a 2 is a guy that was more or less a warm body and not much of a contributor on the field. I see value in guys that are important backups and play on special teams.Doogles said:I don't get why people knock callier so much. He would have easily been our best rb early in the season until d wash figured it out. He catches passes out of the back field and knows how to see a hole. He's better than a 2, that's for certain.
He had Polk then Sankey to compete with. 2 of the better backs in uw history. At the very least he's a great change of pace back, but I'm not going to say that is his ceiling when all he's done is produce. He's a 3.
By definition, most teams will have very similar rankings depending on where you put players on that scale if you don't apply some subjective judgments.
A great example being Jamaal Kearse as a 1. That's ridiculous. Kearse was a strong contributor in special teams and depth player at LB. Being a consistent contributor, even in special teams, is a valuable component of a team. -
Comparing how they rate after their career to how they rated as recruits is the most interesting thing about this kind of exercise. I want to evaluate recruiting, that's why I hang around on this tbs board. The scale has to be comparable for that to be meaningful, and you have to rate everyone that signed.
Guys that never showed up should get a zero. Guys that showed up but never saw the field, either because they left early or just sucked, should get a 1. If they play meaningful minutes at some point but suck overall they get 2....and so on. -
I think we won't use .5's in this format, because with the number of people we have doing this it should get sorted out pretty well. Some will vote 2, some 3, in the end it will average out.
-
@Section8 will you want in on the survey? You responded but have not indicated.
-
To me, Callier and Coop would both be 2s. Injuries limited their contributions, but they both did a little over their time to not get lumped in with the ones.
-
Running list:
Myself
Chuck
Tequilla
H_D
Dennis_DeYoung
kh83
BayDawg
Passion
claycha
doogles
bananasnblondes
Grundle
MrsPetersen
RoadDawg55
Section8
Paging @DNC, @Whatshouldicareabout, @TTJ, @heretobeatmychest. Let me know if you want to participate.
-
I'm in.
-
Sure, sign me up.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:@Section8 will you want in on the survey? You responded but have not indicated.
-
You're a doog if you give Callier a 3. He was a backup his whole career. A fucking backup for his entire career. That's not a 3. A 3 is a 'solid starter who may get some honorable mention All-Conference recognition'.
When the fuck did Callier even sniff All-Conference? When did he start and then not get replaced by someone else almost immediately?
If you are a 5th year senior and you can't clearly beat out DWash and Lavon Coleman you are not a 3.
Vince Weathersby was a 3. Caller is a 2. It's easy. He's the definition of a 2. -
Should I post after the fact how everyone voted, or should it be kept secret? I think I should post the survey results after. That way @Dennis_DeYoung can yell at all of you idiots.
-
YOU GUYS ARE ALL IDIOTS EXCEPT ME!!! I THOUGHT THAT WAS OBVIOUS!!CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:Should I post after the fact how everyone voted, or should it be kept secret? I think I should post the survey results after. That way @Dennis_DeYoung can yell at all of you idiots.
-
I think it's fair to have a master list by players.
In looking back at Callier's stats, I think it's probably more fair to judge him as a 2 than a 3. He wasn't worthless as a player (that a 2 would suggest that he was), but he also was nothing more than a role player (which wouldn't make him a 3). If you mark him as a 3, then what you are saying is that he performed his role well (barring the injuries). If you mark him as a 2, you are saying that he was never a starter. I tend to be a little more kind to players that performed the role that they were asked to perform and not hold it against them if they weren't a front line player - not everybody will be that player.
Bottom line is that he's a bit of an in-between from a judgment standpoint ... just like he was as a player. -
Post how everyone voted. The disagreements are part of the fun.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:Should I post after the fact how everyone voted, or should it be kept secret? I think I should post the survey results after. That way @Dennis_DeYoung can yell at all of you idiots.
-
A 3 IMO is a legitimate starter. Everette Thompson (low 3) or John Timu would be 3's. Callier was never a starter and has hardly even played since his sophomore year.Tequilla said:I think it's fair to have a master list by players.
In looking back at Callier's stats, I think it's probably more fair to judge him as a 2 than a 3. He wasn't worthless as a player (that a 2 would suggest that he was), but he also was nothing more than a role player (which wouldn't make him a 3). If you mark him as a 3, then what you are saying is that he performed his role well (barring the injuries). If you mark him as a 2, you are saying that he was never a starter. I tend to be a little more kind to players that performed the role that they were asked to perform and not hold it against them if they weren't a front line player - not everybody will be that player.
Bottom line is that he's a bit of an in-between from a judgment standpoint ... just like he was as a player. -
I motion that this first-ever HHB TBS re-ranking recruiting class survey effort be called:
"The Jesse Callier Commemorative Post-Collegiate Career Impact Ranking Initiative". -
I respect @Tequilla for reconsidering.
It's tempting to sneak players up because you kind of like them or you remember them, but Hatchie is the definition of a 3 in my mind... and he started 3 years! -
It's all very fascinating to see how different people rate different players, I'm already contemplating how to rate certain players that are being discussed. Should be pretty fun to see the results. And also, the goal for this will be to see if we can determine how well coaches develop talent. I think this will be a fun experiment to do every year before signing day.Dennis_DeYoung said:I respect @Tequilla for reconsidering.
It's tempting to sneak players up because you kind of like them or you remember them, but Hatchie is the definition of a 3 in my mind... and he started 3 years! -
Yes post results by all means. I want to argue with Dennis.
-
Well, good luck with that. I tend to win arguments.chuck said:Yes post results by all means. I want to argue with Dennis.
Ask Tommy Shaw! Oh wait, he joined my band, kicked me out and took the name of it professionally. Dammit. -
My big question is this - are we ranking players based on their display of talent, or their on field contribution? Given the Callier debate as our key example, I think in his opportunities he displayed easy three star talent, bordering on four star (he averaged over 5 yards per carry for his career). OTOH, for a combination of factors (here for arguably the greatest back to back run of RB's in UW history, injuries) he didn't get on the field much, so his actual contribution was certainly just that of a 2 star.
I know in the OP it says "All we will be doing is re-ranking players based on their play at UW during their career, however long or short it may be." but that still leaves it open ending. Are we ranking their talent, or re ranking their contributions, or is that in the eye of the beholder?
IMO, the first question is far more compelling than the second. But I'm probably up for it either way. I certainly don't think HH should be doing anything just because it's the way Doog Baird used to do it. -
Well, no matter what you can say about Dick Baird—he was a pretty decent recruiting coordinator. Also, I'm pretty sure that came from DJ in terms of honesty in evaluation. I remember him saying they looked for objective markers.dnc said:My big question is this - are we ranking players based on their display of talent, or their on field contribution? Given the Callier debate as our key example, I think in his opportunities he displayed easy three star talent, bordering on four star (he averaged over 5 yards per carry for his career). OTOH, for a combination of factors (here for arguably the greatest back to back run of RB's in UW history, injuries) he didn't get on the field much, so his actual contribution was certainly just that of a 2 star.
I know in the OP it says "All we will be doing is re-ranking players based on their play at UW during their career, however long or short it may be." but that still leaves it open ending. Are we ranking their talent, or re ranking their contributions, or is that in the eye of the beholder?
IMO, the first question is far more compelling than the second. But I'm probably up for it either way. I certainly don't think HH should be doing anything just because it's the way Doog Baird used to do it.
Also, I can't imagine how you would 'rate talent'. I mean, does Kasen get a 5 because he had some amazing plays? That's a really weird idea.
I'm surprised I'm surprised about the love for Doog-favorite Callier here, but I guess with the dm.c exodus there are a lot of Doogs here these days. Callier and the FLY SWEEP in our amazing moral victories under Sark were so awesome!!! Except for he was never any good.
Can I give Troy Williams 4-stars because what I think his talent was? -
Also, what's this grade inflation shit already? 1 is worthless. 2 is career backup or crappy starter. 3 is solid starter with maybe some all conference mention. 4 is all-conference. 5 is all-american.Tequilla said:I think it's fair to have a master list by players.
In looking back at Callier's stats, I think it's probably more fair to judge him as a 2 than a 3. He wasn't worthless as a player (that a 2 would suggest that he was), but he also was nothing more than a role player (which wouldn't make him a 3). If you mark him as a 3, then what you are saying is that he performed his role well (barring the injuries). If you mark him as a 2, you are saying that he was never a starter. I tend to be a little more kind to players that performed the role that they were asked to perform and not hold it against them if they weren't a front line player - not everybody will be that player.
Bottom line is that he's a bit of an in-between from a judgment standpoint ... just like he was as a player.
I'm on a personal mission to destroy Jesse Callier, apparently. -
Callier averaged over 5 yards per carry in his career. He never averaged below 4.4 yards per carry in a season. He was never *not* good.Dennis_DeYoung said:
Well, no matter what you can say about Dick Baird—he was a pretty decent recruiting coordinator. Also, I'm pretty sure that came from DJ in terms of honesty in evaluation. I remember him saying they looked for objective markers.dnc said:My big question is this - are we ranking players based on their display of talent, or their on field contribution? Given the Callier debate as our key example, I think in his opportunities he displayed easy three star talent, bordering on four star (he averaged over 5 yards per carry for his career). OTOH, for a combination of factors (here for arguably the greatest back to back run of RB's in UW history, injuries) he didn't get on the field much, so his actual contribution was certainly just that of a 2 star.
I know in the OP it says "All we will be doing is re-ranking players based on their play at UW during their career, however long or short it may be." but that still leaves it open ending. Are we ranking their talent, or re ranking their contributions, or is that in the eye of the beholder?
IMO, the first question is far more compelling than the second. But I'm probably up for it either way. I certainly don't think HH should be doing anything just because it's the way Doog Baird used to do it.
Also, I can't imagine how you would 'rate talent'. I mean, does Kasen get a 5 because he had some amazing plays? That's a really weird idea.
I'm surprised I'm surprised about the love for Doog-favorite Callier here, but I guess with the dm.c exodus there are a lot of Doogs here these days. Callier and the FLY SWEEP in our amazing moral victories under Sark were so awesome!!! Except for he was never any good.
Can I give Troy Williams 4-stars because what I think his talent was?
I don't think the idea of rating talent should be that hard to grasp, but let me put it another way: Based on what you saw of player x's display of ability, what should their talent ranking have been coming out of high school? Just because Callier was behind Chris Polk and Bishop Sankey most of his career while Rich Alexis started as a true freshman doesn't make Alexis a better RB or worthy of a higher post career star ranking, IMO. Alexis came to a team with a shortage of backs and Callier came to a team with riches at the position. You don't upgrade Alexis for being the tallest midget or downgrade Callier for being the shortest giant.
To me the idea of ranking players off of what they did at UW is boring. We already know what they did, we watched the games, our eyes are as good as @grandpasankey's, etc. The idea of a hindsight look at what kind of talent they really had and where they should have been ranked is much more compelling IMO.
And no, Kasen Williams never displayed close to a 5 star talent. That's my poont.
-
Dennis your contention that anyone with a less damning view of Callier than yours is a doog is just stupid. You're ignoring or just forgot what an effective 2nd back he was as Polk's backup, not to mention his contributions returning and covering kicks. His career was a disappointment due to injuries and because he never followed up his first year promise with further improvement. I'll give you that. He still played some good fucking ball at UW.
But...that's the fun of and the value of doing this with as many opinions as possible. Most of us see most things mostly the same, which is why we're here, but we're still going to disagree on particulars.
I will personally try to factor both production and talent though they won't be weighted the same. Kasen Williams gets good marks for both, because he did put up good numbers for two seasons and did make the odd spectacular play. He gets downgraded a bit because he was a slow WR who couldn't get open down the field and didn't make enough spectacular grabs. All taken together he's going to get a good, not great, rating. -
I don't think I want to do it based on talent alone, it will be a formula up to you might be the best way to say it, like Chuck said above. I want to find a way to see who develops players the best, and I think the best way to look at that is by looking a lot at their contribution to the team, and yes in some way it will be also by evaluating their perceived talent in the eye of the beholder.
I think the problem with doing it on talent alone is what do you do with the guy that sits on the bench. He might be a super talented player but we don't really get to see him play because he is stoopid or something. When it all comes down to it I think the ratings would be similar anyways whether you base it on talent or production the numbers would probably come up the same.
I don't know, it's a good poont DNC, but I don't think I'll rate on talent, but it will play a part in some way. -
If you think Callier is good, you're a Doog. Jay Barry was about 40x better than Callier. Name one big play Callier made against a decent opponent.
-
I look at a 3 rating as being that of what I would consider an average conference player.
If you're a 2nd stringer on an upper conference team but would have been a starter on a bottom end of the conference team, you're probably a 3 in my book.
