To Fellow TBS'ers: Re-Ranking Recruiting Classes Survey Request
Comments
-
Yes post results by all means. I want to argue with Dennis.
-
Well, good luck with that. I tend to win arguments.chuck said:Yes post results by all means. I want to argue with Dennis.
Ask Tommy Shaw! Oh wait, he joined my band, kicked me out and took the name of it professionally. Dammit. -
My big question is this - are we ranking players based on their display of talent, or their on field contribution? Given the Callier debate as our key example, I think in his opportunities he displayed easy three star talent, bordering on four star (he averaged over 5 yards per carry for his career). OTOH, for a combination of factors (here for arguably the greatest back to back run of RB's in UW history, injuries) he didn't get on the field much, so his actual contribution was certainly just that of a 2 star.
I know in the OP it says "All we will be doing is re-ranking players based on their play at UW during their career, however long or short it may be." but that still leaves it open ending. Are we ranking their talent, or re ranking their contributions, or is that in the eye of the beholder?
IMO, the first question is far more compelling than the second. But I'm probably up for it either way. I certainly don't think HH should be doing anything just because it's the way Doog Baird used to do it. -
Well, no matter what you can say about Dick Baird—he was a pretty decent recruiting coordinator. Also, I'm pretty sure that came from DJ in terms of honesty in evaluation. I remember him saying they looked for objective markers.dnc said:My big question is this - are we ranking players based on their display of talent, or their on field contribution? Given the Callier debate as our key example, I think in his opportunities he displayed easy three star talent, bordering on four star (he averaged over 5 yards per carry for his career). OTOH, for a combination of factors (here for arguably the greatest back to back run of RB's in UW history, injuries) he didn't get on the field much, so his actual contribution was certainly just that of a 2 star.
I know in the OP it says "All we will be doing is re-ranking players based on their play at UW during their career, however long or short it may be." but that still leaves it open ending. Are we ranking their talent, or re ranking their contributions, or is that in the eye of the beholder?
IMO, the first question is far more compelling than the second. But I'm probably up for it either way. I certainly don't think HH should be doing anything just because it's the way Doog Baird used to do it.
Also, I can't imagine how you would 'rate talent'. I mean, does Kasen get a 5 because he had some amazing plays? That's a really weird idea.
I'm surprised I'm surprised about the love for Doog-favorite Callier here, but I guess with the dm.c exodus there are a lot of Doogs here these days. Callier and the FLY SWEEP in our amazing moral victories under Sark were so awesome!!! Except for he was never any good.
Can I give Troy Williams 4-stars because what I think his talent was? -
Also, what's this grade inflation shit already? 1 is worthless. 2 is career backup or crappy starter. 3 is solid starter with maybe some all conference mention. 4 is all-conference. 5 is all-american.Tequilla said:I think it's fair to have a master list by players.
In looking back at Callier's stats, I think it's probably more fair to judge him as a 2 than a 3. He wasn't worthless as a player (that a 2 would suggest that he was), but he also was nothing more than a role player (which wouldn't make him a 3). If you mark him as a 3, then what you are saying is that he performed his role well (barring the injuries). If you mark him as a 2, you are saying that he was never a starter. I tend to be a little more kind to players that performed the role that they were asked to perform and not hold it against them if they weren't a front line player - not everybody will be that player.
Bottom line is that he's a bit of an in-between from a judgment standpoint ... just like he was as a player.
I'm on a personal mission to destroy Jesse Callier, apparently. -
Callier averaged over 5 yards per carry in his career. He never averaged below 4.4 yards per carry in a season. He was never *not* good.Dennis_DeYoung said:
Well, no matter what you can say about Dick Baird—he was a pretty decent recruiting coordinator. Also, I'm pretty sure that came from DJ in terms of honesty in evaluation. I remember him saying they looked for objective markers.dnc said:My big question is this - are we ranking players based on their display of talent, or their on field contribution? Given the Callier debate as our key example, I think in his opportunities he displayed easy three star talent, bordering on four star (he averaged over 5 yards per carry for his career). OTOH, for a combination of factors (here for arguably the greatest back to back run of RB's in UW history, injuries) he didn't get on the field much, so his actual contribution was certainly just that of a 2 star.
I know in the OP it says "All we will be doing is re-ranking players based on their play at UW during their career, however long or short it may be." but that still leaves it open ending. Are we ranking their talent, or re ranking their contributions, or is that in the eye of the beholder?
IMO, the first question is far more compelling than the second. But I'm probably up for it either way. I certainly don't think HH should be doing anything just because it's the way Doog Baird used to do it.
Also, I can't imagine how you would 'rate talent'. I mean, does Kasen get a 5 because he had some amazing plays? That's a really weird idea.
I'm surprised I'm surprised about the love for Doog-favorite Callier here, but I guess with the dm.c exodus there are a lot of Doogs here these days. Callier and the FLY SWEEP in our amazing moral victories under Sark were so awesome!!! Except for he was never any good.
Can I give Troy Williams 4-stars because what I think his talent was?
I don't think the idea of rating talent should be that hard to grasp, but let me put it another way: Based on what you saw of player x's display of ability, what should their talent ranking have been coming out of high school? Just because Callier was behind Chris Polk and Bishop Sankey most of his career while Rich Alexis started as a true freshman doesn't make Alexis a better RB or worthy of a higher post career star ranking, IMO. Alexis came to a team with a shortage of backs and Callier came to a team with riches at the position. You don't upgrade Alexis for being the tallest midget or downgrade Callier for being the shortest giant.
To me the idea of ranking players off of what they did at UW is boring. We already know what they did, we watched the games, our eyes are as good as @grandpasankey's, etc. The idea of a hindsight look at what kind of talent they really had and where they should have been ranked is much more compelling IMO.
And no, Kasen Williams never displayed close to a 5 star talent. That's my poont.
-
Dennis your contention that anyone with a less damning view of Callier than yours is a doog is just stupid. You're ignoring or just forgot what an effective 2nd back he was as Polk's backup, not to mention his contributions returning and covering kicks. His career was a disappointment due to injuries and because he never followed up his first year promise with further improvement. I'll give you that. He still played some good fucking ball at UW.
But...that's the fun of and the value of doing this with as many opinions as possible. Most of us see most things mostly the same, which is why we're here, but we're still going to disagree on particulars.
I will personally try to factor both production and talent though they won't be weighted the same. Kasen Williams gets good marks for both, because he did put up good numbers for two seasons and did make the odd spectacular play. He gets downgraded a bit because he was a slow WR who couldn't get open down the field and didn't make enough spectacular grabs. All taken together he's going to get a good, not great, rating. -
I don't think I want to do it based on talent alone, it will be a formula up to you might be the best way to say it, like Chuck said above. I want to find a way to see who develops players the best, and I think the best way to look at that is by looking a lot at their contribution to the team, and yes in some way it will be also by evaluating their perceived talent in the eye of the beholder.
I think the problem with doing it on talent alone is what do you do with the guy that sits on the bench. He might be a super talented player but we don't really get to see him play because he is stoopid or something. When it all comes down to it I think the ratings would be similar anyways whether you base it on talent or production the numbers would probably come up the same.
I don't know, it's a good poont DNC, but I don't think I'll rate on talent, but it will play a part in some way. -
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.
-
I look at a 3 rating as being that of what I would consider an average conference player.
If you're a 2nd stringer on an upper conference team but would have been a starter on a bottom end of the conference team, you're probably a 3 in my book.
