Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Why CP will win big at UW, and why it will take a few years. (TLDR)
TTJ
Member Posts: 4,798
In short, it's about the "bottom" half of each recruiting class.
As LOI day approaches, we will all be reading about "key signees" -- the couple of marquee, four- or five-guys who headline each P12 school's recruiting class. Sarkisian's classes always looked good by this measure: If you don't look beyond the "top" three or four guys in each class, his classes seemed pretty impressive. There certainly seemed to be more star power than in Willingham's classes.
Of course, this superficial view hid the lousy, desperate, "Plan B" guys who'd be grabbed in the eleventh hour to fill out these classes when most of the big names would turn UW down. It also hid the guys who were mis-evaluated, mostly as a result of laziness. (Recall Goncharoff's remark about the main difference between CP's staff and SS's: Petersen's guys wanted whole game films, not just highlight reels.)
Once you cut through the "OKG" bullshit, CP's personnel philsophy comes down to two things: (1) Scouting each recruit carefully and independently; and (2) developing each existing player such that he makes an incrementally larger contribution each year he's with the program. This approach leads to fewer "misses" and greater long-term contributions from the "bottom" half of each recruiting class.
Recruiting "misses" are deadly in this business. Any program that has lived through scholarhip restrictions knows that 85 ain't that many, and that the margin for error is small. Every time you offer a scholarship to the wrong guy, it creates a hole in your depth chart that will eventually have to get filled by some unprepared true frosh down the road. Sark was the master of "misses," as the recent survey reminds us. Everytime a true frosh gets forced onto the field too early, it leads to game-costing mistakes, career-ending injuries, and -- you guessed it -- more future holes in the depth chart that have to get filled. It's a vicious cycle, which CP must -- and I believe will -- eventually reverse. But it will take time.
Looking back in hindsight, how many true frosh can you recall playing at UW in a situation completely devoid of need? Kaufman and Bruener both played as true frosh on the '91 team, despite quality upperclassmen in their position groups. Rich Alexis earned his way onto the field in '00, despite a deep bench of veteran RBs. There is probably a small handful of other examples where UW true frosh absolutely forced their way past quality veterans and onto the field. But need is nearly always the driving force behind each decision to take off a redshirt, from Marques Tuiasosopo to Paul Arnold to Reggie Williams, on down to Shaq, ASJ, and String. Lawyer Milloy benefitted from a redshirt, and Budda Baker would have too. Honestly, what player *isn't* better at age 23 than at age 19?
I believe CP will win big at UW by missing on fewer recruits, developing the guys he has, and gradually playing fewer and fewer true freshmen. The average age of our starting lineup will eventually go way up. It will take a few years, but unlike the last guy CP is here for the long haul. And this patient, grown-up approach will pay huge dividends down the road.
As LOI day approaches, we will all be reading about "key signees" -- the couple of marquee, four- or five-guys who headline each P12 school's recruiting class. Sarkisian's classes always looked good by this measure: If you don't look beyond the "top" three or four guys in each class, his classes seemed pretty impressive. There certainly seemed to be more star power than in Willingham's classes.
Of course, this superficial view hid the lousy, desperate, "Plan B" guys who'd be grabbed in the eleventh hour to fill out these classes when most of the big names would turn UW down. It also hid the guys who were mis-evaluated, mostly as a result of laziness. (Recall Goncharoff's remark about the main difference between CP's staff and SS's: Petersen's guys wanted whole game films, not just highlight reels.)
Once you cut through the "OKG" bullshit, CP's personnel philsophy comes down to two things: (1) Scouting each recruit carefully and independently; and (2) developing each existing player such that he makes an incrementally larger contribution each year he's with the program. This approach leads to fewer "misses" and greater long-term contributions from the "bottom" half of each recruiting class.
Recruiting "misses" are deadly in this business. Any program that has lived through scholarhip restrictions knows that 85 ain't that many, and that the margin for error is small. Every time you offer a scholarship to the wrong guy, it creates a hole in your depth chart that will eventually have to get filled by some unprepared true frosh down the road. Sark was the master of "misses," as the recent survey reminds us. Everytime a true frosh gets forced onto the field too early, it leads to game-costing mistakes, career-ending injuries, and -- you guessed it -- more future holes in the depth chart that have to get filled. It's a vicious cycle, which CP must -- and I believe will -- eventually reverse. But it will take time.
Looking back in hindsight, how many true frosh can you recall playing at UW in a situation completely devoid of need? Kaufman and Bruener both played as true frosh on the '91 team, despite quality upperclassmen in their position groups. Rich Alexis earned his way onto the field in '00, despite a deep bench of veteran RBs. There is probably a small handful of other examples where UW true frosh absolutely forced their way past quality veterans and onto the field. But need is nearly always the driving force behind each decision to take off a redshirt, from Marques Tuiasosopo to Paul Arnold to Reggie Williams, on down to Shaq, ASJ, and String. Lawyer Milloy benefitted from a redshirt, and Budda Baker would have too. Honestly, what player *isn't* better at age 23 than at age 19?
I believe CP will win big at UW by missing on fewer recruits, developing the guys he has, and gradually playing fewer and fewer true freshmen. The average age of our starting lineup will eventually go way up. It will take a few years, but unlike the last guy CP is here for the long haul. And this patient, grown-up approach will pay huge dividends down the road.
Comments
1) To your comments about Petersen's scouting of each recruit independently and about incremental progress within the program, I'd add to the fact that he's also looking for players that will thrive in his program. It's not for everybody. Not everybody wants to do the little things. Not everybody is excited by incremental gains. Not everybody is excited about the process. But the process works. It worked for Petersen at Boise. It works for the Seahawks ... how often do you hear Russell Wilson talk about the process? Championships are won because of the process. They are won every bit as much in the offseason as they are during the season. Most look at the offseason as being just about lifting weights and all of that. But the key to the offseason is that that's where you find the guys that are bought in and are driven to develop themselves (regardless of whether the coaches are around or not) versus the guys that are along for the ride. The guys that are looking to make themselves better. The guys that are putting in place the good habits and seed for growth that they'll see the results of in time.
2) Missing in recruiting is akin to self-imposing scholarship reductions on yourself.
3) Redshirting in today's world is a tricky business. We could have RS a kid like Shaq but he left after 3 years anyway and would have regardless of whether we had him RS or not. With NFL careers being so brief, the $$$ impact of getting to the pro's early if you are that caliber of player is too big of a thing to pass up. Obviously, you want to find guys like that in your program because of the high end talent that they have. But where you find the championship clubs are the 4th and 5th year players that very well will be pro's someday, but they aren't the kind of pro's where they are going to go out and be the 4th round pick that exceeds expectations. We all hear about the Jimmy's and the Joe's. Rarely is the #1 Jimmy the difference between a win and loss. But the Joe's that are #12-#22 in the starting units often are.
Thanks anyway guys... I'm sure you made great, insightful, poonts.
I have no worries about recruiting and he's proven at developing players.
Then again, I'd probably celebrate heavily if I learned he dumped Smith and hired someone proven.
Yea yea dooging it up he hasn't won a rose bowl underachieved this year blah blah blah.
cant underestimate the ability of well coached/developed 22 and 23 year old college players, even if they were "only" 3 stars, etc. evalution and development will win the day for coach pete.
Free Pub!!llII
And good read.