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
-
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.
