I've enjoyed this a lot. I cannot imagine how DiAndre Canmbell would rate worse than Callier, though...
Campbell beat out a lot of mediocre players and started a full year. Callier never started. Hence, it makes no sense he is "a solid starter who sniffed HM all-conference".
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.
The thing I like about Campbell is that he was a very good perimeter blocker and a high effort guy.
While he wasn't a spectacular receiver (obviously) he definitely was a dedicated blocker who played his role well. I think Callier's probably more talented... but that's not saying much.
Callier is a below average (starters) RB in the Pac-12 in terms of talent. Same with DiAndre Campbell.
It'll be fun to see which of us is the closest to reality (their picks match the median) and who is the furthest from the truth (the highest variation).
Did any of you ever look at a p12 opponent of ours (Cuogs not counting) and think "boy they'd be a lot better with Jesse Callier" ?
Below. Average. He's a 2.
In 2010 and 2011 he averaged more YPC than Chris Polk. How is he below average when his numbers suggest otherwise? By stats, he is the definition of above average given the opportunity. I'm not even talking about his kick return numbers here, or his special teams touchdown. I just find it interesting that the majority of dawg fans seem to have this opinion about Callier, but he's never sucked.
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.
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.
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.
Callier, while talented, couldnt stay healthy. Im basing on results, not talent. And if you can't stay on the field, you can't contribute. If this was talent based, we could just go by scout...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
Wow, Just Wow.
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.
You also sai Campbell played his role well. That has never been true.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Comments
Campbell beat out a lot of mediocre players and started a full year. Callier never started. Hence, it makes no sense he is "a solid starter who sniffed HM all-conference".
While he wasn't a spectacular receiver (obviously) he definitely was a dedicated blocker who played his role well. I think Callier's probably more talented... but that's not saying much.
Callier is a below average (starters) RB in the Pac-12 in terms of talent. Same with DiAndre Campbell.
It'll be fun to see which of us is the closest to reality (their picks match the median) and who is the furthest from the truth (the highest variation).
PL_SS (the FS nimrod predicting 3 consecutive division titles for Sark) should take notice.
Below. Average. He's a 2.
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.
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 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.
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.