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
-
So you wrote a TL, DR post arguing that I said that Campbell was a 2, but that I could argue that he'd be a 2.5 as a 3 year contributor where his contributions may have been more off of the scoresheet than on?RoadDawg55 said:
Disagree. This plays back to what DNC said about Callier. Callier didn't start because he had good players in front of him. Campbell only played because he didn't.Tequilla said:Campbell is another interesting case study.
As a WR, he was pedestrian to say the least. However, his blocking ability at the WR position was fairly strong.
I'd say that he's a 2 on the scale, but would give him a 2.5 if I could. He's another guy that I would argue, much like Callier, that had a role on the team and performed his role accordingly. It might have always been a sexy role, but it was a role none the less and he performed that role actually fairly well.
Campbell got playing time in 2012 when Kasen was the only other outside WR. Kevin Smith was coming off an ACL tear. The other WR's were Bruns and Mickens. That teams WR's sucked and were at the very bottom of the Pac 12. Campbell also sucked when he played.
Once Smith was healthy in 2013, Campbell got very little PT. Even when Kasen was hurt, Stringfellow and Marvin Hall played over him.
2014, look at the outside WR's. Kasen was hurt and beefed with coaches almost the whole season. His playing time was drastically cut when he yelled at Miles on the field near the end of the Stanford game. John Ross played outside, but moved half way though the season.
He didn't play fairly well. He played terrible. Spare the shit about blocking too. If you are pumping up a WR's blocking, he sucks. It's important for a couple of plays each game and as a fan you mostly have no clue how WR's are doing except if the RB breaks a long run or a sweep. It's not hard to imagine a RS-SR being better than freshman (Pettis, Lenius) or smurfs (Ross, Hall). Campbell can be a 2 star because he actually played, but his production was nothing more.
Wow, Just Wow. -
Too bad I spent the last 10 years drunk and high watching SEC games. But Callier is a 5 and Miles is a 0. That's my vote
-
It's a message board debate. You wrote the same tl,dr post yesterday about Miles being the reason UW didn't go 12-1.Tequilla said:
So you wrote a TL, DR post arguing that I said that Campbell was a 2, but that I could argue that he'd be a 2.5 as a 3 year contributor where his contributions may have been more off of the scoresheet than on?RoadDawg55 said:
Disagree. This plays back to what DNC said about Callier. Callier didn't start because he had good players in front of him. Campbell only played because he didn't.Tequilla said:Campbell is another interesting case study.
As a WR, he was pedestrian to say the least. However, his blocking ability at the WR position was fairly strong.
I'd say that he's a 2 on the scale, but would give him a 2.5 if I could. He's another guy that I would argue, much like Callier, that had a role on the team and performed his role accordingly. It might have always been a sexy role, but it was a role none the less and he performed that role actually fairly well.
Campbell got playing time in 2012 when Kasen was the only other outside WR. Kevin Smith was coming off an ACL tear. The other WR's were Bruns and Mickens. That teams WR's sucked and were at the very bottom of the Pac 12. Campbell also sucked when he played.
Once Smith was healthy in 2013, Campbell got very little PT. Even when Kasen was hurt, Stringfellow and Marvin Hall played over him.
2014, look at the outside WR's. Kasen was hurt and beefed with coaches almost the whole season. His playing time was drastically cut when he yelled at Miles on the field near the end of the Stanford game. John Ross played outside, but moved half way though the season.
He didn't play fairly well. He played terrible. Spare the shit about blocking too. If you are pumping up a WR's blocking, he sucks. It's important for a couple of plays each game and as a fan you mostly have no clue how WR's are doing except if the RB breaks a long run or a sweep. It's not hard to imagine a RS-SR being better than freshman (Pettis, Lenius) or smurfs (Ross, Hall). Campbell can be a 2 star because he actually played, but his production was nothing more.
Wow, Just Wow.
You also sai Campbell played his role well. That has never been true. -
You said I was moving the goal posts ...
I've never moved the goal posts ...
I had a preseason projection that made certain base assumptions ... not every single one of those assumptions turned out to be valid ...
If you can't see that you're now making posts just to disagree with me then I don't know what to tell you. -
You were moving goalposts. There are always reasons/excuses for why a team loses. Aubbie does it every year.Tequilla said:You said I was moving the goal posts ...
I've never moved the goal posts ...
I had a preseason projection that made certain base assumptions ... not every single one of those assumptions turned out to be valid ...
If you can't see that you're now making posts just to disagree with me then I don't know what to tell you. -
So what you're saying is that you're pissed that I'm not kicking and screaming because we didn't match my expectations (and self admittedly, I set aggressive targets/goals) ...
You may be the first person in the history of mankind that is fighting against someone saying that they made a FS assumption that caused their expectations to be wrong and actually owning up to that FS assumption.
Your working premise has been that I've been so full on dooging for Pete that I'm blinded by calling him out for anything that he has done wrong. Even though I noted numerous times that I thought that the fake punt against Stanford was FS (even though I also understand what he was trying to do - learning experience). Your evidence that I full on doog for Pete was defending the running of the ball against Arizona (which after the fact we've seen how many examples of that play out throughout the country week in and week out?) or the lack of calling a timeout to save 20 seconds or whatever against Arizona (which while I understand the logic that many used to make that argument it really didn't matter much to me because that kick was either going to win or lose the game - there wasn't anything that made me think that we'd win the game in the remaining time ... but that horse has been beaten to death).
Otherwise, there aren't too many examples where you can claim that I'm dooging for Pete without it being based in reality. His track record before he came to the program is what it was ... as a witness to many of the Boise vs. TCU battles, I know how good of a coach Pete is. Laughing at the lack of recruiting that was rumored to be the case as I knew that not only would he have access to better recruits (which we're seeing) but also the development of those players would be show over time (which we saw this year throughout the roster and in particular with the DBs). That when everybody was ripping on the coaching staff throughout the year (defense in September, offense in October), that I took more of a LIPO mode that recognized that the coaching staff was getting a handle on what the players could and couldn't do and would adjust accordingly - which they did. That in the month of November you basically started to see the kind of football out of a University of Washington team that we all wanted to see on a go-forward basis (physical, strong defensively, determined running team, strong kicking game).
TL, DR summary: stop disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. If I'm going to say that I'm wrong on something, let me say that I'm wrong on something. -
Awesome fucking thread and idea.
-
This list will be invalid unless I am able to determine if they were a superb athlete with great hips.
-
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.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?
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. -
@alexis and @gladstone, can I count you two as in?
-
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.
-
WDWYAGladstone 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.
-
I never fault a kid for going to
Stanfordwork overthe HuskiesTBSing -
Kasen is too damn high.RoadDawg55 said:
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.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?
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.
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.dnc said:
Kasen is too damn high.RoadDawg55 said:
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.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?
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.
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.
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. -
CrispedGladstone said:I never fault a
kidgrown man forgoing toStanfordworkhanging out in his mom's basement overthe HuskiesTBSing -
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. -
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.
-
I will weight players that were multi-year contributors far more favorably than guys that just blew up with 1 really good year.
-
I think it is best if we don't have set criteria. I like the idea of people defining their own idea of contribution. Plus it should create great debate as we've already seen from the Callier discussion. It will all even out in the end.
-
Ultimately aren't we trying to find the true value of a recruiting class? Was this player worth our time? Was he Pac-12 caliber or lucky his shield didn't read 'Big Sky'? I'm not knocking guys for getting injured, unless it's someone like Nathan Rhodes that the entire country knew he was done.
It's a freak game, who gets hurt who doesn't is up to chance and not indicative if a guy was worth the time or not. A guy who plays competently when called upon is more valuable than a guy who generally sucked but was there forever. The past two staffs were such fuck ups, it's hard to say who slipped through the cracks. We can count Hudson as one for certain.
I'm ranking on could this motherfucker play or not. I'm not giving Callier a 2, because he proved he could play. Kasen gets a 4 because he proved he could play at a very high level and got fucked by unluckiness.
I'm trying to get the number down to the individuals talent, his competence as a d1 player, and then you can debate the fucktardedness or brilliance of how the staff used his individual pieces. -
For me this whole thing is finding out how well coaches develop players. But I think what you described above will work just fine in determining that also.
For example, the current trajectory for a player like Sidney Jones is probably a 4 or 5 from a contribution level. But that also includes his talent in it as well because he is just a really good player. So I think whether we are rating talent or contribution it will all work out in the end. -
I'll give it a shot, but only if the Styx guy yells at me afterwards
-
HOW ABOUT I YELL AT YOU NOW, BITCH?!?!Alexis said:I'll give it a shot, but only if the Styx guy yells at me afterwards
-
Sure, let's get this TBS show on the road.
