To be honest, I don't know enough about the needs of other teams to know how well they recruited and whatnot.
But I would probably rank:
USC
UCLA
Oregon (if Adams transfers to UO we would be right up with UCLA) ASU
Washington Stanford
Utah Arizona
Cal
Wazzu
Oregon State Colorado
Vernon Adams has already been addresses here. I'll just say it's cute how you listed the 247sports ranking which has UW 6th, and not the scout.com ranking which has UW 5th.
Face it, usc and ucla were the top tier, and it's splitting hairs among the next 4.
ESPN has UW 6th as well.
I have no idea who ends up more accurate between 24-7 and Scout. I have trouble taking a site called 24-7 seriously, but then I have trouble taking anyone who stalks teenage bois for a living seriously. I do think ranking by average stars is better than ranking by total stars.
Whatever, the point is that after sc and ucla, it's all close among the next 4 schools. Vernon fucking Adams doesn't propel the trash into the top tier.
ESPN has Oregon at #3 and that's without Adams.
I agree it's close 3-6. But I also think Oregon is pretty clearly a solid sized step above UW. Which, considering they were in the NC game and we were Oklahoma State's bitch, is pretty impressive for us.
Yes, getting a guy with Russell Wilson-type possibility doesn't mean anything for this recruiting cycle, especially since Oregon's REAL 2d string QB transferred out at the end of the 2012 season because Mariota decided to stay an additional year. Jeff Lockie is not a Pac-12 caliber QB, Vernon Adams is. The remainder of our offensive backfield is all Pac-12 quality, and we are probably adding a guy that can effectively distribute and move the ball, which we don't currently have because our 3rd string guys are too young/inexperienced/injured. As I've said proven college QB >>>>> 5* prep QB all day long.
Do you actually believe the stupid shit you type?
I use 247 ratings because they are the best of a bad bunch - they make some effort to rationalize their ratings across different rating systems and come up with a composite. I have no desire (nor do I really care)to downrate UW any more than I have a desire to downrate USC or UCLA. Oregon has finished in the Top 5-10 since 2009 with classes rated in the 15-20 range - this class is pretty similar to those. We have a couple of real difference makers on the lines and probably three of the top ATHs in the country, so I wouldn't call UO's class "trash" and your comment to that effect is FS.
Using the 247 composite, there's 3 points' difference (star avg) between UCLA and UO and 3 points' difference between UO and UW. If that's a statistically significant difference (I have no idea and am not going to run the numbers to find out) then there's some daylight between UO's and UW's classes, and UW doesn't have a Vernon Adams walking through the door to answer your very real concerns at the QB position.
Well, this is interesting. So oregon is closer to ucla than Washington, eh. According to scout;
School Points
USC 4950 UCLA. 4088 Arizona State 3023 Oregon. 2818 Washington 2717 Stanford 2548
The bottom line is that all of these ranking systems are like forecasting the weather one month in advance. Tell me how the mid-star players (i.e., Bryce Sterk) will develop, and I'll tell you how the classes should be ranked. Until then, FS.
The bottom line is that all of these ranking systems are like forecasting the weather one month in advance. Tell me how the mid-star players (i.e., Bryce Sterk) will develop, and I'll tell you how the classes should be ranked. Until then, FS.
I don't disagree w/this. Also, recruiting has more to do with each team's needs at given positions than overall classes. But if you've read my screed over on the Duck bored, you know that I think that Scout is probably the most worthless of the TBS systems. I like 247's best because they try to do a composite (still flawed, but credit for trying).
My view on Oregon is that this is another in a series of 'top 20' TBS classes that, if history is a guide, turns into a top 5-10 performer on the field. Oregon has outperformed its TBS ratings before and after Chip Kelly's time in Eugene. While UO did not get any prep LBs - the two JC LBs who signed look like guys who will see the field in the coming season. Kind of like Joe Walker last year.
My view on Washington is that it was a very good class, but did not really fill a need at RB - Gaskin looks like more of a slot or TZR back to me than a true RB, which was a need for UW in this class.
Arizona State signed a great QB that completely does not fit the system they run and a white RB - so I view their class as suspect.
I don't agree that recruiting has to do with need. This isn't the NFL draft. If your team needs true freshman they are fucked. Nobody talks about the great coaches recruiting for need because they recruit a balanced class every year, they evaluate well, and they develop the players they recruit.
"recruiting for need" is like "stars don't matter" #thingsloserssay
Eh. Sometimes more players flame out than pan out at a given position group, some years guys unexpectedly transfer out or get injured. Hence "needs." It's still forecasting because nobody competent should be recruiting someone in February to start in the fall (barring some weird stuff like Vernon Adams).
Some things aren't needs. You take a QB, an RB and some OL and DL every year. You just do.
Gaskin and McClatcher look the type of RBs that Chip took in the late 2000s which pulled them out of Belottis regression. LaMichael James, Barner, etc.
With recruiting, I think if you get The QB right and you keep OL/DL pipeline full. That's 90% of the battle. I think Doogs > Quooks in that regard this class. Although I caveat that Waller has a very good chance to develop into a better QB than Browning, but probably not within the next two years.
Gaskin and McClatcher look the type of RBs that Chip took in the late 2000s which pulled them out of Belottis regression. LaMichael James, Barner, etc.
Taj Griffin, Malik Lovette and Kirk Merritt say "hi"
Moreover I don't see the logic of shitting on 4star RBs at UW that are 5'10 ish 180 by pointing to two Oregon 4star RBs that are 5'10ish 180? They are all the same players, only difference is how fat people ranked them.
Moreover I don't see the logic of shitting on 4star RBs at UW that are 5'10 ish 180 by pointing to two Oregon 4star RBs that are 5'10ish 180? They are all the same players, only difference is how fat people ranked them.
I just don't see Gaskin (5' 9"/185/4.5) as an every-down back in UW's offense. Part of why the scat guys do well at UO is the way we spread the field. From what I've seen of Peterman, he likes to have a bigger back to open up the middle of the field from either a shotgun or a pro-style under-center set. IMO Warren was a big miss for UW.
I was also responding your comment on the UO in that "Doogs > Quooks" when we landed three top 10 APB-type prospects. Both UO and UW did really well on the lines. UO got possibly the #1 DL in the country.
Comments
I agree it's close 3-6. But I also think Oregon is pretty clearly a solid sized step above UW. Which, considering they were in the NC game and we were Oklahoma State's bitch, is pretty impressive for us.
Yes, getting a guy with Russell Wilson-type possibility doesn't mean anything for this recruiting cycle, especially since Oregon's REAL 2d string QB transferred out at the end of the 2012 season because Mariota decided to stay an additional year. Jeff Lockie is not a Pac-12 caliber QB, Vernon Adams is. The remainder of our offensive backfield is all Pac-12 quality, and we are probably adding a guy that can effectively distribute and move the ball, which we don't currently have because our 3rd string guys are too young/inexperienced/injured. As I've said proven college QB >>>>> 5* prep QB all day long.
Do you actually believe the stupid shit you type?
I use 247 ratings because they are the best of a bad bunch - they make some effort to rationalize their ratings across different rating systems and come up with a composite. I have no desire (nor do I really care)to downrate UW any more than I have a desire to downrate USC or UCLA. Oregon has finished in the Top 5-10 since 2009 with classes rated in the 15-20 range - this class is pretty similar to those. We have a couple of real difference makers on the lines and probably three of the top ATHs in the country, so I wouldn't call UO's class "trash" and your comment to that effect is FS.
Using the 247 composite, there's 3 points' difference (star avg) between UCLA and UO and 3 points' difference between UO and UW. If that's a statistically significant difference (I have no idea and am not going to run the numbers to find out) then there's some daylight between UO's and UW's classes, and UW doesn't have a Vernon Adams walking through the door to answer your very real concerns at the QB position.
All of you involved in the arguing need to switch to your porn tab(s) and LIPO with these 18 year old fuckers.
School Points
USC 4950
UCLA. 4088
Arizona State 3023
Oregon. 2818
Washington 2717
Stanford 2548
The bottom line is that all of these ranking systems are like forecasting the weather one month in advance. Tell me how the mid-star players (i.e., Bryce Sterk) will develop, and I'll tell you how the classes should be ranked. Until then, FS.
My view on Oregon is that this is another in a series of 'top 20' TBS classes that, if history is a guide, turns into a top 5-10 performer on the field. Oregon has outperformed its TBS ratings before and after Chip Kelly's time in Eugene. While UO did not get any prep LBs - the two JC LBs who signed look like guys who will see the field in the coming season. Kind of like Joe Walker last year.
My view on Washington is that it was a very good class, but did not really fill a need at RB - Gaskin looks like more of a slot or TZR back to me than a true RB, which was a need for UW in this class.
Arizona State signed a great QB that completely does not fit the system they run and a white RB - so I view their class as suspect.
Oregon has proven they find kids that fit their system and can develop those kids.
UW's coach has proven he can take kids and develop them, but not at the PAC level ... yet.
The kids will either be successful, or they won't. Either way it should be interesting.
"recruiting for need" is like "stars don't matter" #thingsloserssay
Oregon is not a loser team.
Some things aren't needs. You take a QB, an RB and some OL and DL every year. You just do.
With recruiting, I think if you get The QB right and you keep OL/DL pipeline full. That's 90% of the battle. I think Doogs > Quooks in that regard this class. Although I caveat that Waller has a very good chance to develop into a better QB than Browning, but probably not within the next two years.
Moreover I don't see the logic of shitting on 4star RBs at UW that are 5'10 ish 180 by pointing to two Oregon 4star RBs that are 5'10ish 180? They are all the same players, only difference is how fat people ranked them.
I just don't see Gaskin (5' 9"/185/4.5) as an every-down back in UW's offense. Part of why the scat guys do well at UO is the way we spread the field. From what I've seen of Peterman, he likes to have a bigger back to open up the middle of the field from either a shotgun or a pro-style under-center set. IMO Warren was a big miss for UW.
I was also responding your comment on the UO in that "Doogs > Quooks" when we landed three top 10 APB-type prospects. Both UO and UW did really well on the lines. UO got possibly the #1 DL in the country.