Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
To Fellow TBS'ers: Re-Ranking Recruiting Classes Survey Request
Comments
-
Will there be a standardized system for us to use, or are we to go off our own individual ideas?
-
I'll be sending out an online survey with a list of all the players that are leaving either by graduation/turning pro or dismissed/transferring. All you will have to do is rate their contribution to the UW football program on a scale of 0-5.
I'm doing 0-5 to compare how they came in to UW rated by Scout.com, but the initial HS ranking should have no bearing on how you rate them. Just base your rating off of their performance at UW alone, nothing else. -
We've talked about this before and I had suggested that, a long time ago, I think it was Dick Baird (it was some coach) who told me they used a 5-point system for ranking careers...kh83 said:Will there be a standardized system for us to use, or are we to go off our own individual ideas?
I'll do it for 2010 since everyone's done (save for Dry Eyes) now:
1 - Did not contribute in any meaningful way (Montana, Lagafuaina, Pelluer, Gilliland, Burnett, Fogerson, Kearse)
2 - Career backup, poor starter (Criste, Atoe, Potoa'e, Stevenson, Callier, Kohler, Campbell, Hartvigson)
3 - Solid starter, maybe honorable mention All Conference (Timu, Ducre, Hatchie, Smith, Tanigawa, Fuimaono, Riva, Shirley)
4 - All Conference player, first or second team (Parker, A.Hudson)
5 - All American on any team (Kikaha)
You can't really rate guys who had to retire from injuries (Porter) or guys who didn't make it in (Young, Waters).
The guys who are hard to rank here are Shirley (weird career), Atoe (sort of a 2.5) and both Sean Parker and Andrew Hudson (sort of 3.5s). -
That is exactly what I am thinking Dennis. I am just adding the zero because I believe there should be a penalty for bringing in a guy like Garrett Gilliland or Nathan Dean (who, imo, are 0's) to your program only to find out they really, really, really suck.
-
I think the hardest ranking will be those in the 2-3 range. For the 1 and 4-5, those are pretty clear, but those guys that are starters without impressive "external" accolades I would submit that they need to be looked at in context of who they were competing with for playing time.Dennis_DeYoung said:
We've talked about this before and I had suggested that, a long time ago, I think it was Dick Baird (it was some coach) who told me they used a 5-point system for ranking careers...kh83 said:Will there be a standardized system for us to use, or are we to go off our own individual ideas?
I'll do it for 2010 since everyone's done (save for Dry Eyes) now:
1 - Did not contribute in any meaningful way (Montana, Lagafuaina, Pelluer, Gilliland, Burnett, Fogerson, Kearse)
2 - Career backup, poor starter (Criste, Atoe, Potoa'e, Stevenson, Callier, Kohler, Campbell, Hartvigson)
3 - Solid starter, maybe honorable mention All Conference (Timu, Ducre, Hatchie, Smith, Tanigawa, Fuimaono, Riva, Shirley)
4 - All Conference player, first or second team (Parker, A.Hudson)
5 - All American on any team (Kikaha)
You can't really rate guys who had to retire from injuries (Porter) or guys who didn't make it in (Young, Waters).
The guys who are hard to rank here are Shirley (weird career), Atoe (sort of a 2.5) and both Sean Parker and Andrew Hudson (sort of 3.5s).
Probably the best example that I can think of for the negative of this is the secondary of the 2005-2008 era. Yeah they were starters, but they were the best of a very bad situation. Some of those guys I would hesitate to even give them a 2 as a "poor starter" because if they were in most other (then) Pac-10 programs they would have not seen a lot of playing time.
Keeping with the shitty secondary example, how do you rank a guy like Dashon Goldson? He earned honorable mention Pac-10, but his career was somewhat limited by injury and the all around shittyness of those around him. He was probably better than his stats and team record indicated (quite honestly) as evidenced by how his career "blew up" in the NFL. -
Felix Sweetman is a 17 on this scale.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:I'll be sending out an online survey with a list of all the players that are leaving either by graduation/turning pro or dismissed/transferring. All you will have to do is rate their contribution to the UW football program on a scale of 0-5.
I'm doing 0-5 to compare how they came in to UW rated by Scout.com, but the initial HS ranking should have no bearing on how you rate them. Just base your rating off of their performance at UW alone, nothing else.
-
Well, I think 1 captures that because it's 'didn't contribute'. It's hard to know why people didn't contribute; in the case of Gililland, everyone was convinced he was the next CORD TENNYSON™ when he started as a true frosh. Then he got flushed because he sucked.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:That is exactly what I am thinking Dennis. I am just adding the zero because I believe there should be a penalty for bringing in a guy like Garrett Gilliland or Nathan Dean (who, imo, are 0's) to your program only to find out they really, really, really suck.
With Dean, supposedly the guy with more physical talent than Banner and Garnett just lost his boner for football.
The question is, with guys like Chris Young, do you give them a 0 because you wasted effort in recruiting them and they didn't come? Or do you just ignore it? -
I think it might be important to grade that, wasting time recruiting/signing guys like Chris Young and Andrew BashamDennis_DeYoung said:The question is, with guys like Chris Young, do you give them a 0 because you wasted effort in recruiting them and they didn't come? Or do you just ignore it?
(and paying them money in a coffee cup)is important because you could have ended up with another player in their place that may have contributed. IDK, maybe never set foot on campus = 0 while you get a 1 just for being on campus, much like you get poonts on the SAT just for figuring out how to spell your name? -
I think 0 makes sense for the reasons that Mrs. Petersen noted ... if you're wasting your time recruiting them, then in theory that is a spot not only on the roster, but energies that could be used in recruiting for better players.
I also think that for guys that fall between 2 and 3, or 3 and 4, etc. that it makes sense to have partial grades in the 2.5 or 3.5 range.
Yes, that makes it a little more subjective but I also think that it is more accurate in placing someone that is somewhere between the two spots in between then either under/over valuing the player. -
I think you have to account for the retirements since their initial ratings coming into UW contributed to the overall class ranking at that time. I'd maybe include them in the "1" or possibly "2" category depending on how much playing time they had before retirement.Dennis_DeYoung said:
We've talked about this before and I had suggested that, a long time ago, I think it was Dick Baird (it was some coach) who told me they used a 5-point system for ranking careers...kh83 said:Will there be a standardized system for us to use, or are we to go off our own individual ideas?
I'll do it for 2010 since everyone's done (save for Dry Eyes) now:
1 - Did not contribute in any meaningful way (Montana, Lagafuaina, Pelluer, Gilliland, Burnett, Fogerson, Kearse)
2 - Career backup, poor starter (Criste, Atoe, Potoa'e, Stevenson, Callier, Kohler, Campbell, Hartvigson)
3 - Solid starter, maybe honorable mention All Conference (Timu, Ducre, Hatchie, Smith, Tanigawa, Fuimaono, Riva, Shirley)
4 - All Conference player, first or second team (Parker, A.Hudson)
5 - All American on any team (Kikaha)
You can't really rate guys who had to retire from injuries (Porter) or guys who didn't make it in (Young, Waters).
The guys who are hard to rank here are Shirley (weird career), Atoe (sort of a 2.5) and both Sean Parker and Andrew Hudson (sort of 3.5s).
