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.
He's in the UW top 8 kickoff return average of all time, and that's not thanks to a couple big returns in a small sample, he returned over 60 kicks in his career. I can't name a big run against a great opponent off the top of my head, but dude gained 57 yards on 10 carries against Nebraska in the first Jake Locker 4 for 20 dreckfest when nobody else on the offense could do jack shit. He wasn't a superstar by any means and no one's arguing he was, but he was a good player everytime he touched the ball.
I'm not sure why I'm arguing with you about this, you also swore all year Lavon Coleman was better than Dwayne Washington. Call me a doog all you want. I'll put my RB evaluations up against yours anyday.
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.
He's in the UW top 8 kickoff return average of all time, and that's not thanks to a couple big returns in a small sample, he returned over 60 kicks in his career. I can't name a big run against a great opponent off the top of my head, but dude gained 57 yards on 10 carries against Nebraska in the first Jake Locker 4 for 20 dreckfest when nobody else on the offense could do jack shit. He wasn't a superstar by any means and no one's arguing he was, but he was a good player (1) everytime* he touched the ball.
I'm not sure why I'm arguing with you about this, you also swore all year Lavon Coleman was better than Dwayne Washington. Call me a doog all you want. I'll put my RB evaluations up against yours anyday.
Until it was obvious that Wawrshington was BETTER! Now, I think Wawrshington is better.
Actually, I still think Lavon will be good.
Callier fucking sucks (or is massively mediocre). Why the love for Callier? I just can't figure out what he did! He is basically DiAndre Campbell, except for DiAndre Campbell beat people out to start at some point in his career!
I think the legend of Callier was building from his HS highlight tape where doogs were sure we were 'set' at the RB forever. The next year people used it as a reason we didn't need Sankey.
8th in KO returns? 57 yards in a losing effort? A guy who couldn't beat out ANYONE in his career?
I can't figure it out.
(1) Let's not be fucking dramatic. There were tons of runs where Callier did jack shit. Tons. He mostly did jack shit, actually.
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.
He's in the UW top 8 kickoff return average of all time, and that's not thanks to a couple big returns in a small sample, he returned over 60 kicks in his career. I can't name a big run against a great opponent off the top of my head, but dude gained 57 yards on 10 carries against Nebraska in the first Jake Locker 4 for 20 dreckfest when nobody else on the offense could do jack shit. He wasn't a superstar by any means and no one's arguing he was, but he was a good player (1) everytime* he touched the ball.
I'm not sure why I'm arguing with you about this, you also swore all year Lavon Coleman was better than Dwayne Washington. Call me a doog all you want. I'll put my RB evaluations up against yours anyday.
Until it was obvious that Wawrshington was BETTER! Now, I think Wawrshington is better.
Actually, I still think Lavon will be good.
Callier fucking sucks (or is massively mediocre). Why the love for Callier? I just can't figure out what he did! He is basically DiAndre Campbell, except for DiAndre Campbell beat people out to start at some point in his career!
I think the legend of Callier was building from his HS highlight tape where doogs were sure we were 'set' at the RB forever. The next year people used it as a reason we didn't need Sankey.
8th in KO returns? 57 yards in a losing effort? A guy who couldn't beat out ANYONE in his career?
I can't figure it out.
(1) Let's not be fucking dramatic. There were tons of runs where Callier did jack shit. Tons. He mostly did jack shit, actually.
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.
He's in the UW top 8 kickoff return average of all time, and that's not thanks to a couple big returns in a small sample, he returned over 60 kicks in his career. I can't name a big run against a great opponent off the top of my head, but dude gained 57 yards on 10 carries against Nebraska in the first Jake Locker 4 for 20 dreckfest when nobody else on the offense could do jack shit. He wasn't a superstar by any means and no one's arguing he was, but he was a good player (1) everytime* he touched the ball.
I'm not sure why I'm arguing with you about this, you also swore all year Lavon Coleman was better than Dwayne Washington. Call me a doog all you want. I'll put my RB evaluations up against yours anyday.
Until it was obvious that Wawrshington was BETTER! Now, I think Wawrshington is better.
Actually, I still think Lavon will be good.
Callier fucking sucks (or is massively mediocre). 1) Why the love for Callier? 2) I just can't figure out what he did! He is basically DiAndre Campbell, except for DiAndre Campbell beat people out to start at some point in his career!
3) I think the legend of Callier was building from his HS highlight tape where doogs were sure we were 'set' at the RB forever. The next year people used it as a reason we didn't need Sankey.
4) 8th in KO returns? 57 yards in a losing effort? A guy who couldn't beat out ANYONE in his career?
I can't figure it out.
(1) Let's not be fucking dramatic. 5) There were tons of runs where Callier did jack shit. Tons. He mostly did jack shit, actually.
*every time.
1) There is no love for Callier. It's not that simple and doogs hate nuance. You're mistaking a lack of blanket condemnation and for love. 2) You don't have to figure it out. DNC explained it somewhate. He made plays, which you can't seem to remember, but he also put up solid numbers in a reserve and special teams role. 3) There is no legend of Callier, other than the one you're formulated in your mind where he was just completely useless. 4) There's something he did. Doesn't really bear any similarity to DiAndre Campbell does it? 5) Polk and Sankey had plenty of runs where they didn't do jack shit. People tend to forget those and look at the whole, including their YPC. Should try that with Callier? Nah, why bother? He sucked.
The disagreements are making me more excited to do this. I agree more with Dennis regarding Callier. Two star guy. Injuries probably held him back from being a three. He showed a little his first two years, but it was mostly yards against the lesser teams. I do remember a 100+ yard game against UCLA on a Thursday night. He had decent quickness, but I do remember him going down pretty easily. He wasn't breaking a lot of tackles.
It's tough to say how good Callier was because he blew out his knee when his role was going to be expanded and then Sankey took over. He hasn't looked the same since that knee injury.
Regarding Coleman, he is young so it may be rushing to judgment, but I think he gets passed up by Gaskin and he will certainly have his "bigger back" role taken if Warren comes. Washington is being groomed to be the guy and Cooper will also have some kind of role. If Gaskin and/or Warren are legitimate Pac 12 backs (I think they are), Coleman is the likely man out. RB isn't a position like OL where you need to wait two or three years. Most good RB's play in year one and are starting by their sophomore or junior year.
The funny part about the Callier argument is we're arguing whether he sucks (deserves 2*) or whether he was a pretty good, productive player who amassed enough points to earn 3* in spite of his career being partially derailed by injury. It's kind of a petty argument but all good fun.
I still think Washington sucks except for in one aspect (running fast through really big holes). I'm not saying he can't get better, but I don't think he will. Coleman only sucks because he's slow. If Washington could borrow Coleman's vision and desire to get the most out of his carries he'd be a 4* back right now with an outside chance of reaching 5* by the end, but running backs rarely go through that big of a transformation.
With Coleman, I don't know what's going to happen. He showed flashes (like Callier) of being a really good tailback when he ran with purpose. When he didn't, he looked awful. He had such a good couple games early, he started over everyone... then he looked awful and got benched.
In the words of Jay-Z in the Jaz classic, Hawaiian Sophie, "I can't call it."
I think it's always important to deal with what people 'actually are' rather than what they 'could've been.' With Callier, the evidence is that he was in a position to take the job twice and neither time could he grab the job.
He's essentially a poor man's Jay Barry.
My point about all of this is that he gets more interest because he came in with middling fanfare and had a couple decent runs, so people thought he might be good in the future. When he never really did much, people never really came to terms with what he actually was, which was a back of average size, speed, vision and moves.
You can't mention him in the same breath with Sankey and Polk, who were both absolute geniuses as soon as they hit the field.
If Callier had been a 5-star kid, I think people would be calling him a major bust and it would be easier to label him a 2 because of the contrast away from the expectations.
I try to ask myself, 'what if this kid came in as a 5-star?' so you are honest about what each kid did.
Are there kids on our team that lived up to that right now? Yeah: Shaq, Shelton, Peters (well, used to be on our team anyway) and Kikaha.
It's an interesting exercise to de-bias evaluation. What would you think if they were unrecruited 2-stars, or 5-stars?
Wouldn't Kasen's career be seen totally differently?
I'm not saying it's super important to think that way, but if we want to be accurate (I'm guessing the reason to get 20 people to do it is to get a 'wisdom of the crowd' effect), it helps to think from a few angles possibly.
I just think Callier gets a little bit of 'Cody Bruns' love. A guy who seemed like he would do something and never really got a chance to unequivocally prove he sucked because he never really played... so people's template of him in their minds dominates the evaluation rather than the fact that he was never a starter on middling Pac-12 teams.
Just some thoughts for the mind as they say.
This is basically a Tevis "Unibomber" Bartlett manifesto at this length.
TL;DR - i'm not saying anything interesting. Move along. These aren't the droids you're looking for.
Dennis mentioned it, and I'll remind everyone when we actually do the survey in a few weeks, but it will be key to not factor in the rating of the player when they came into the program. That is really the most important thing. If you want to rate on their talent or contribution, fine, either will do well for our purposes and everyone will have their own way of doing it. But in the end look at the player with a blank slate from the day they signed their LOI.
With Coleman, I don't know what's going to happen. He showed flashes (like Callier) of being a really good tailback when he ran with purpose. When he didn't, he looked awful. He had such a good couple games early, he started over everyone... then he looked awful and got benched.
In the words of Jay-Z in the Jaz classic, Hawaiian Sophie, "I can't call it."
I think it's always important to deal with what people 'actually are' rather than what they 'could've been.' With Callier, the evidence is that he was in a position to take the job twice and neither time could he grab the job.
He's essentially a poor man's Jay Barry.
My point about all of this is that he gets more interest because he came in with middling fanfare and had a couple decent runs, so people thought he might be good in the future. When he never really did much, people never really came to terms with what he actually was, which was a back of average size, speed, vision and moves.
You can't mention him in the same breath with Sankey and Polk, who were both absolute geniuses as soon as they hit the field.
If Callier had been a 5-star kid, I think people would be calling him a major bust and it would be easier to label him a 2 because of the contrast away from the expectations.
I try to ask myself, 'what if this kid came in as a 5-star?' so you are honest about what each kid did.
Are there kids on our team that lived up to that right now? Yeah: Shaq, Shelton, Peters (well, used to be on our team anyway) and Kikaha.
It's an interesting exercise to de-bias evaluation. What would you think if they were unrecruited 2-stars, or 5-stars?
Wouldn't Kasen's career be seen totally differently?
I'm not saying it's super important to think that way, but if we want to be accurate (I'm guessing the reason to get 20 people to do it is to get a 'wisdom of the crowd' effect), it helps to think from a few angles possibly.
I just think Callier gets a little bit of 'Cody Bruns' love. A guy who seemed like he would do something and never really got a chance to unequivocally prove he sucked because he never really played... so people's template of him in their minds dominates the evaluation rather than the fact that he was never a starter on middling Pac-12 teams.
Just some thoughts for the mind as they say.
This is basically a Tevis "Unibomber" Bartlett manifesto at this length.
TL;DR - i'm not saying anything interesting. Move along. These aren't the droids you're looking for.
Of course if he was a 5 star he'd be considered a bust. We're arguing whether he's a 2 or a 3, anyone in that 2.5 range is a massive bust if he came in with 5 star hype.
But fuck off with the Bruns and DiAndre Campbell shit. Callier is one of the best kick returners UW ever had and averaged over 5 yards a carry for his career. He was never bad when he got onto the field, which is something you absolutely cannot say about Bruns or Campbell.
No one is putting him in the same breath with Polk and Sankey, let's leave that strawman aside. We're debating whether he deserves a third star or not. Everyone would rate both Polk and Sankey as five stars. At least I assume so, if not this rating system is bullshit.
Jessie Callier performed well in every season he saw the field and in every role he ever played on the field. We can speculate as to the reasons he didn't see the field more - just wasn't as good as the players ahead of him, injuries sapped his explosiveness when he would have been the most talented guy, wasn't a great practice player, whatever. But the dude played well when he actually played. I'm not arguing he *could* have done something, I'm arguing he played when when he played, both on ST and in the backfield, and the numbers back my eyes up. IMO, he was a lot better player though he never started than many players we have had who did start at other positions (hello Campbell, Crichton, etc).
With Coleman, I don't know what's going to happen. He showed flashes (like Callier) of being a really good tailback when he ran with purpose. When he didn't, he looked awful. He had such a good couple games early, he started over everyone... then he looked awful and got benched.
In the words of Jay-Z in the Jaz classic, Hawaiian Sophie, "I can't call it."
I think it's always important to deal with what people 'actually are' rather than what they 'could've been.' With Callier, the evidence is that he was in a position to take the job twice and neither time could he grab the job.
He's essentially a poor man's Jay Barry.
My point about all of this is that he gets more interest because he came in with middling fanfare and had a couple decent runs, so people thought he might be good in the future. When he never really did much, people never really came to terms with what he actually was, which was a back of average size, speed, vision and moves.
You can't mention him in the same breath with Sankey and Polk, who were both absolute geniuses as soon as they hit the field.
If Callier had been a 5-star kid, I think people would be calling him a major bust and it would be easier to label him a 2 because of the contrast away from the expectations.
I try to ask myself, 'what if this kid came in as a 5-star?' so you are honest about what each kid did.
Are there kids on our team that lived up to that right now? Yeah: Shaq, Shelton, Peters (well, used to be on our team anyway) and Kikaha.
It's an interesting exercise to de-bias evaluation. What would you think if they were unrecruited 2-stars, or 5-stars?
Wouldn't Kasen's career be seen totally differently?
I'm not saying it's super important to think that way, but if we want to be accurate (I'm guessing the reason to get 20 people to do it is to get a 'wisdom of the crowd' effect), it helps to think from a few angles possibly.
I just think Callier gets a little bit of 'Cody Bruns' love. A guy who seemed like he would do something and never really got a chance to unequivocally prove he sucked because he never really played... so people's template of him in their minds dominates the evaluation rather than the fact that he was never a starter on middling Pac-12 teams.
Just some thoughts for the mind as they say.
This is basically a Tevis "Unibomber" Bartlett manifesto at this length.
TL;DR - i'm not saying anything interesting. Move along. These aren't the droids you're looking for.
Of course if he was a 5 star he'd be considered a bust. We're arguing whether he's a 2 or a 3, anyone in that 2.5 range is a massive bust if he came in with 5 star hype.
But fuck off with the Bruns and DiAndre Campbell shit. Callier is one of the best kick returners UW ever had and averaged over 5 yards a carry for his career. He was never bad when he got onto the field, which is something you absolutely cannot say about Bruns or Campbell.
No one is putting him in the same breath with Polk and Sankey, let's leave that strawman aside. We're debating whether he deserves a third star or not. Everyone would rate both Polk and Sankey as five stars. At least I assume so, if not this rating system is bullshit.
Jessie Callier performed well in every season he saw the field and in every role he ever played on the field. We can speculate as to the reasons he didn't see the field more - just wasn't as good as the players ahead of him, injuries sapped his explosiveness when he would have been the most talented guy, wasn't a great practice player, whatever. But the dude played well when he actually played. I'm not arguing he *could* have done something, I'm arguing he played when when he played, both on ST and in the backfield, and the numbers back my eyes up. IMO, he was a lot better player though he never started than many players we have had who did start at other positions (hello Campbell, Crichton, etc).
Hahaha, you're fucking dooging out over Callier!
If you read my whole fucktarded poast just to Doog out over Callier, then the cancer has won in your mind.
This turned into a massive threadjack. I love it. The key to the Callier argument from my side is that I'm not saying he's Polk or Sankey. He's 2* less than them at a minimum. I'm just saying he's not DiAndre Campbell. Callier was good in his role and produced. Campbell was not and has not.
I was not overly excited about Callier being the guy to take over for Polk. I felt like he was a pretty quick, hard runner that fell down at times for no good reason. I thought/think he would have been OK, but wouldn't have held the job for long if the injury hadn't happened. Sankey would have needed 1-2 full games to take over. I really had no idea Sankey was going to be as good as he was though.
With Coleman, I don't know what's going to happen. He showed flashes (like Callier) of being a really good tailback when he ran with purpose. When he didn't, he looked awful. He had such a good couple games early, he started over everyone... then he looked awful and got benched.
In the words of Jay-Z in the Jaz classic, Hawaiian Sophie, "I can't call it."
I think it's always important to deal with what people 'actually are' rather than what they 'could've been.' With Callier, the evidence is that he was in a position to take the job twice and neither time could he grab the job.
He's essentially a poor man's Jay Barry.
My point about all of this is that he gets more interest because he came in with middling fanfare and had a couple decent runs, so people thought he might be good in the future. When he never really did much, people never really came to terms with what he actually was, which was a back of average size, speed, vision and moves.
You can't mention him in the same breath with Sankey and Polk, who were both absolute geniuses as soon as they hit the field.
If Callier had been a 5-star kid, I think people would be calling him a major bust and it would be easier to label him a 2 because of the contrast away from the expectations.
I try to ask myself, 'what if this kid came in as a 5-star?' so you are honest about what each kid did.
Are there kids on our team that lived up to that right now? Yeah: Shaq, Shelton, Peters (well, used to be on our team anyway) and Kikaha.
It's an interesting exercise to de-bias evaluation. What would you think if they were unrecruited 2-stars, or 5-stars?
Wouldn't Kasen's career be seen totally differently?
I'm not saying it's super important to think that way, but if we want to be accurate (I'm guessing the reason to get 20 people to do it is to get a 'wisdom of the crowd' effect), it helps to think from a few angles possibly.
I just think Callier gets a little bit of 'Cody Bruns' love. A guy who seemed like he would do something and never really got a chance to unequivocally prove he sucked because he never really played... so people's template of him in their minds dominates the evaluation rather than the fact that he was never a starter on middling Pac-12 teams.
Just some thoughts for the mind as they say.
This is basically a Tevis "Unibomber" Bartlett manifesto at this length.
TL;DR - i'm not saying anything interesting. Move along. These aren't the droids you're looking for.
Of course if he was a 5 star he'd be considered a bust. We're arguing whether he's a 2 or a 3, anyone in that 2.5 range is a massive bust if he came in with 5 star hype.
But fuck off with the Bruns and DiAndre Campbell shit. Callier is one of the best kick returners UW ever had and averaged over 5 yards a carry for his career. He was never bad when he got onto the field, which is something you absolutely cannot say about Bruns or Campbell.
No one is putting him in the same breath with Polk and Sankey, let's leave that strawman aside. We're debating whether he deserves a third star or not. Everyone would rate both Polk and Sankey as five stars. At least I assume so, if not this rating system is bullshit.
Jessie Callier performed well in every season he saw the field and in every role he ever played on the field. We can speculate as to the reasons he didn't see the field more - just wasn't as good as the players ahead of him, injuries sapped his explosiveness when he would have been the most talented guy, wasn't a great practice player, whatever. But the dude played well when he actually played. I'm not arguing he *could* have done something, I'm arguing he played when when he played, both on ST and in the backfield, and the numbers back my eyes up. IMO, he was a lot better player though he never started than many players we have had who did start at other positions (hello Campbell, Crichton, etc).
Hahaha, you're fucking dooging out over Callier!
Yes, claiming he was a better player than Talia Crichton, Cody Bruns and DiAndre Campbell is major dooging man. MAJOR.
This turned into a massive threadjack. I love it. The key to the Callier argument from my side is that I'm not saying he's Polk or Sankey. He's 2* less than them at a minimum. I'm just saying he's not DiAndre Campbell. Callier was good in his role and produced. Campbell was not and has not.
I was not overly excited about Callier being the guy to take over for Polk. I felt like he was a pretty quick, hard runner that fell down at times for no good reason. I thought/think he would have been OK, but wouldn't have held the job for long if the injury hadn't happened. Sankey would have needed 1-2 full games to take over. I really had no idea Sankey was going to be as good as he was though.
This turned into a massive threadjack. I love it. The key to the Callier argument from my side is that I'm not saying he's Polk or Sankey. He's 2* less than them at a minimum. I'm just saying he's not DiAndre Campbell. Callier was good in his role and produced. Campbell was not and has not.
I was not overly excited about Callier being the guy to take over for Polk. I felt like he was a pretty quick, hard runner that fell down at times for no good reason. I thought/think he would have been OK, but wouldn't have held the job for long if the injury hadn't happened. Sankey would have needed 1-2 full games to take over. I really had no idea Sankey was going to be as good as he was though.
When we reveal the voting of this survey hardcorehusky might actually explode judging by the reaction over a debate about whether Jesse Callier is a 2 or 3 star player. This could be awesome!
When we reveal the voting of this survey hardcorehusky might actually explode judging by the reaction over a debate about whether Jesse Callier is a 2 or 3 star player. This could be awesome!
If nothing else it gives us something to distract us from another run at the offseason natty.
This turned into a massive threadjack. I love it. The key to the Callier argument from my side is that I'm not saying he's Polk or Sankey. He's 2* less than them at a minimum. I'm just saying he's not DiAndre Campbell. Callier was good in his role and produced. Campbell was not and has not.
I was not overly excited about Callier being the guy to take over for Polk. I felt like he was a pretty quick, hard runner that fell down at times for no good reason. I thought/think he would have been OK, but wouldn't have held the job for long if the injury hadn't happened. Sankey would have needed 1-2 full games to take over. I really had no idea Sankey was going to be as good as he was though.
I didn't realize HIV affected eyesight.
T's and P's.
We all know better you blind, HIV dripping motherfucker.
What monster did I create by squinting at my phone on a bar top to defend Callier? I just always thought his numbers spoke for themselves even though the general sentiment on the boreds was "he sucks, he falls down, has no wiggle, etc". Over 5.0 ypc. He was never bad. He was good and produced whenever he played. He deserves the 3rd star.
Anyways back to drinking you doogliest doogers to ever doog!!
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.
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.
I agree with most of that but I've seen Campbell drop too many balls.
Comments
I'm not sure why I'm arguing with you about this, you also swore all year Lavon Coleman was better than Dwayne Washington. Call me a doog all you want. I'll put my RB evaluations up against yours anyday.
Actually, I still think Lavon will be good.
Callier fucking sucks (or is massively mediocre). Why the love for Callier? I just can't figure out what he did! He is basically DiAndre Campbell, except for DiAndre Campbell beat people out to start at some point in his career!
I think the legend of Callier was building from his HS highlight tape where doogs were sure we were 'set' at the RB forever. The next year people used it as a reason we didn't need Sankey.
8th in KO returns? 57 yards in a losing effort? A guy who couldn't beat out ANYONE in his career?
I can't figure it out.
(1) Let's not be fucking dramatic. There were tons of runs where Callier did jack shit. Tons. He mostly did jack shit, actually.
*every time.
hth
2) You don't have to figure it out. DNC explained it somewhate. He made plays, which you can't seem to remember, but he also put up solid numbers in a reserve and special teams role.
3) There is no legend of Callier, other than the one you're formulated in your mind where he was just completely useless.
4) There's something he did. Doesn't really bear any similarity to DiAndre Campbell does it?
5) Polk and Sankey had plenty of runs where they didn't do jack shit. People tend to forget those and look at the whole, including their YPC. Should try that with Callier? Nah, why bother? He sucked.
It's tough to say how good Callier was because he blew out his knee when his role was going to be expanded and then Sankey took over. He hasn't looked the same since that knee injury.
Regarding Coleman, he is young so it may be rushing to judgment, but I think he gets passed up by Gaskin and he will certainly have his "bigger back" role taken if Warren comes. Washington is being groomed to be the guy and Cooper will also have some kind of role. If Gaskin and/or Warren are legitimate Pac 12 backs (I think they are), Coleman is the likely man out. RB isn't a position like OL where you need to wait two or three years. Most good RB's play in year one and are starting by their sophomore or junior year.
I still think Washington sucks except for in one aspect (running fast through really big holes). I'm not saying he can't get better, but I don't think he will. Coleman only sucks because he's slow. If Washington could borrow Coleman's vision and desire to get the most out of his carries he'd be a 4* back right now with an outside chance of reaching 5* by the end, but running backs rarely go through that big of a transformation.
In the words of Jay-Z in the Jaz classic, Hawaiian Sophie, "I can't call it."
I think it's always important to deal with what people 'actually are' rather than what they 'could've been.' With Callier, the evidence is that he was in a position to take the job twice and neither time could he grab the job.
He's essentially a poor man's Jay Barry.
My point about all of this is that he gets more interest because he came in with middling fanfare and had a couple decent runs, so people thought he might be good in the future. When he never really did much, people never really came to terms with what he actually was, which was a back of average size, speed, vision and moves.
You can't mention him in the same breath with Sankey and Polk, who were both absolute geniuses as soon as they hit the field.
If Callier had been a 5-star kid, I think people would be calling him a major bust and it would be easier to label him a 2 because of the contrast away from the expectations.
I try to ask myself, 'what if this kid came in as a 5-star?' so you are honest about what each kid did.
Are there kids on our team that lived up to that right now? Yeah: Shaq, Shelton, Peters (well, used to be on our team anyway) and Kikaha.
It's an interesting exercise to de-bias evaluation. What would you think if they were unrecruited 2-stars, or 5-stars?
Wouldn't Kasen's career be seen totally differently?
I'm not saying it's super important to think that way, but if we want to be accurate (I'm guessing the reason to get 20 people to do it is to get a 'wisdom of the crowd' effect), it helps to think from a few angles possibly.
I just think Callier gets a little bit of 'Cody Bruns' love. A guy who seemed like he would do something and never really got a chance to unequivocally prove he sucked because he never really played... so people's template of him in their minds dominates the evaluation rather than the fact that he was never a starter on middling Pac-12 teams.
Just some thoughts for the mind as they say.
This is basically a Tevis "Unibomber" Bartlett manifesto at this length.
TL;DR - i'm not saying anything interesting. Move along. These aren't the droids you're looking for.
But fuck off with the Bruns and DiAndre Campbell shit. Callier is one of the best kick returners UW ever had and averaged over 5 yards a carry for his career. He was never bad when he got onto the field, which is something you absolutely cannot say about Bruns or Campbell.
No one is putting him in the same breath with Polk and Sankey, let's leave that strawman aside. We're debating whether he deserves a third star or not. Everyone would rate both Polk and Sankey as five stars. At least I assume so, if not this rating system is bullshit.
Jessie Callier performed well in every season he saw the field and in every role he ever played on the field. We can speculate as to the reasons he didn't see the field more - just wasn't as good as the players ahead of him, injuries sapped his explosiveness when he would have been the most talented guy, wasn't a great practice player, whatever. But the dude played well when he actually played. I'm not arguing he *could* have done something, I'm arguing he played when when he played, both on ST and in the backfield, and the numbers back my eyes up. IMO, he was a lot better player though he never started than many players we have had who did start at other positions (hello Campbell, Crichton, etc).
If you read my whole fucktarded poast just to Doog out over Callier, then the cancer has won in your mind.
I was not overly excited about Callier being the guy to take over for Polk. I felt like he was a pretty quick, hard runner that fell down at times for no good reason. I thought/think he would have been OK, but wouldn't have held the job for long if the injury hadn't happened. Sankey would have needed 1-2 full games to take over. I really had no idea Sankey was going to be as good as he was though.
T's and P's.
Anyways back to drinking you doogliest doogers to ever doog!!
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.