Petersen Question From Stewart Mandel's Mailbag
-- Joseph V. Manzo, Coral Gables, Fla.
I don't think you can say Harsin was the brains behind Petersen -- like the way we often said Petersen was the brains behind predecessor Dan Hawkins -- because for one thing, those great Boise State teams won with a suffocating defense as much as they did a creative offense. But more to the point, Harsin left for Texas in 2011 and the Broncos kept winning. Petersen was the primary architect behind Boise's extraordinary 84-8 run from 2006-12, and I fully expect him to elevate Washington over the next couple of years.
If that doesn't happen, though, it would raise more questions about Petersen than it would either his current or former employer. While Washington has struggled for more than a decade, it's at no real institutional disadvantage compared with its divisional foes. If anything its location should give it a better chance at success than even Oregon. And while people would inevitably try to correlate Petersen with former Boise coaches Hawkins (Colorado) and Dirk Koetter (Arizona State), who flopped at a higher level, that seems misguided, too. Each of those guys ran the program in their own unique ways, but beyond that, why would Boise be a less likely launching point than Bowling Green (Urban Meyer), Central Michigan (Brian Kelly) or any number of other mid-majors?
Having said all that, Petersen's personality and philosophy were ideally suited to Boise. There's no guarantee they will translate at Washington, but I believe they will.
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/2015-sec-media-days-alabama-crimson-tide-florida-state-seminoles-dalvin-cook-mailbag-071515
Comments
-
Agree 100%
Thanks for posting -
Judging from how Petersen is blowing everything up and blowing up on the recruiting trail, seems like his personality and philosophy are working fine here, too.RoadDawg55 said:Stewart, if Boise State returns to the Boise State of old and Washington remains mired in mediocrity, what will it mean? Will it mean that Bryan Harsin was the brains behind Chris Petersen? Will it mean that success at Boise State simply doesn't translate elsewhere? Will it mean that Washington no longer has whatever it had as late as the early 2000s?
-- Joseph V. Manzo, Coral Gables, Fla.
I don't think you can say Harsin was the brains behind Petersen -- like the way we often said Petersen was the brains behind predecessor Dan Hawkins -- because for one thing, those great Boise State teams won with a suffocating defense as much as they did a creative offense. But more to the point, Harsin left for Texas in 2011 and the Broncos kept winning. Petersen was the primary architect behind Boise's extraordinary 84-8 run from 2006-12, and I fully expect him to elevate Washington over the next couple of years.
If that doesn't happen, though, it would raise more questions about Petersen than it would either his current or former employer. While Washington has struggled for more than a decade, it's at no real institutional disadvantage compared with its divisional foes. If anything its location should give it a better chance at success than even Oregon. And while people would inevitably try to correlate Petersen with former Boise coaches Hawkins (Colorado) and Dirk Koetter (Arizona State), who flopped at a higher level, that seems misguided, too. Each of those guys ran the program in their own unique ways, but beyond that, why would Boise be a less likely launching point than Bowling Green (Urban Meyer), Central Michigan (Brian Kelly) or any number of other mid-majors?
Having said all that, Petersen's personality and philosophy were ideally suited to Boise. There's no guarantee they will translate at Washington, but I believe they will.
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/2015-sec-media-days-alabama-crimson-tide-florida-state-seminoles-dalvin-cook-mailbag-071515 -
Of all the Pac-12 jobs, I believe Petersen when he says he really wanted UW and it was a good fit. Personality wise, Seattle suits him well and UW offers the opportunity to build a national powerhouse without compromising his personal wants. Whether he can do it remains to be seen. The early returns from the recruiting classes suggest he might.
-
National powerhouse from two ~20th ranked classes? Surely you jest.AEB said:Of all the Pac-12 jobs, I believe Petersen when he says he really wanted UW and it was a good fit. Personality wise, Seattle suits him well and UW offers the opportunity to build a national powerhouse without compromising his personal wants. Whether he can do it remains to be seen. The early returns from the recruiting classes suggest
he might.he's good but not amazing at recruiting.
Not that rankings are everything, but we missed on Skinny Eason and lost out on every super big-time guy in Cali last year. Don't get me wrong, I like our recruiting classes, but BBK, Kyler Nanu, DJ Beavers and Andre Bacchanalia are not impressive kids.
We got like 6-8 kids last year that are the kind of kids we were getting in '88-'90: Gaskin, Renfro, McClatcher, Adams, Roberts, Potoa'e, Joyner... you could throw Browning and Neal in there if you were feeling generous. Outside of those guys, it's a fucking crapshoot and even inside those guys you're talking about an expectation of a 2/3 success rate.
Bartlett, Hilbers, McCoy and Scrempos are guys that you could see being good at some point if they develop right.
The rest are just leftovers. -
I think Kim's FS comments from when Peterman was hired have some inflating his recruiting results. Last year's class was sixth in the PAC 12 on 24/7 and 5th on Scout. That's right in the middle. It's pretty good, but other schools recruit good players too.
-
Part of my faith in Pete's recruiting comes from Sidney Jones, Dante Pettis and Will Dissly. All these guys were not highly recruited, but played well as freshmen and were specifically targeted by Pete as guys who hadn't gotten big time offers, but who were good players.RoadDawg55 said:I think Kim's FS comments from when Peterman was hired have some inflating his recruiting results. Last year's class was sixth in the PAC 12 on 24/7 and 5th on Scout. That's right in the middle. It's pretty good, but other schools recruit good players too.
Obviously 1 year is not enough to make a judgment, but to the extent that there is any evidence at all, the evidence points to him doing well picking out players.
He certainly doesn't just offer and recruit every 4-star kid. He is selective and that shows even when he's offering kids that no one else likes.
I keep trashing the midget LBs, WR and Jordan Miller (who is fucking awful), but I do think he's not just crazy; there's something there he likes. His track record at Boise speaks for itself and when you combine that with what we saw out of guys like Jones, Pettis and Dissly last year, I think there's some evidence that his mid-tier guys can be trusted.
No one fucking wins a national championship with a bunch of mid tier guys, though. You get Natty's because you have the 3-stars that turn into Emptermanns and the 4 and 5 star kids are all really outstanding.
Our Natty team was filled with top-level recruits and depth players who were also top level recruits (this is their equivalent star ratings):
QB: Billy Joe Hobert - 4 (Mark Brunell - 4)
RB: Beno Bryant - 4 (Jay Berry - 4, Nip - 5)
FB: Matt Jones - 4 (Matt Jones - 4)
WR: Mario Bailey - 4
WR: Orlando McKay - 4
TE: Aaron Pierce - 4 (Mark Bruener - 5)
T: Kris Rongen - 3 (Andrew Peterson - 5)
G: Lincoln Kennedy - 5
C: Ed Cunningham - 4 (Frank Garcia - 3)
G: Pete Kaligis - 3
T: Siupeli Malamala - 4 (Tom Gallagher - 4)
DE: Donald Jones - 3 (Jamal Fountaine - 4)
DT: Stan Emptermann - 3 (D'Marco Farr - 4)
DT: Tyrone Rogers - 4 (Mike Lustyk - 5, Steve Hoffmann - 5)
DE: Andy Mason - 3
LB: Dave Hoffmann - 4/5 (James Clifford - 3/4)
LB: Jaime Fields - 3/4 (Hilary Butler - 4)
LB: Chico Fraley - 3/4 (Brett Collins - 3/4)
DB: Walter Bailey - 4 (William Doctor - 3/4)
DB: Dana Hall - 4
DB: Tommie Smith - 5 (Paxton Tailele - 4)
DB: Shane Pahukoa - 3 -
RoadDawg55 said:
...Will it mean that Washington no longer has whatever it had as late as the early 2000s?
-- Joseph V. Manzo, Coral Gables, Fla.
I have no idea what Joseph is referring to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r5kK4_Wu_0 -
What you are looking for to some degree is growth in recruiting quality year after year ... a building block approach.
In the transition class, Petersen did a good job of bringing in a handful of players that we think can be difference makers and what would appear to be a number of quality players that are going to build out the overall depth of the program.
DD did a good job of summarizing the 2015 class and I tend to agree in that we'll end up with somewhere between 6-10 real solid players out of the class and again a number of players that will drive up the overall depth of the program.
The 2016 class is projecting to be a relatively small class (15-20 kids) but the early results are very encouraging in terms of the overall quality. This is the level of class that I expect to see going forward.
When you look back at the level of mediocrity in the program over the last 5-7 years, there have been a couple of constant themes that I've seen:
1) When we've had top level talent, that top level talent is quite good ... we just don't have enough of it ... we may have 4-6 players in any given year whereas the top programs are going to have more in the 8-10 range.
2) The delta between our top end players and the remaining starters has been greater than that of the top programs in the conference ... when such a delta exists it makes it much easier for other teams to play away from your better players defensively and focus on them offensively.
3) The difference in quality between the first and second string has been vast. Top teams are able to replace injured players with similar quality depth as well as liberally rotate during games to ensure that their team is fresh in the 2nd half and in particular the 4th quarter of games.
There's no question in my mind that the tools exist to win still at the UW at a high level. What's been missing for the better part of 20+ years is a coach with the vision and focus necessary to be able to create a program that capitalizes on what is required to win at a high level. Petersen is that kind of coach. -
Like with all @Tequilla poasts, I just pick one or two sentences to read and vote accordingly. This poast seems reasonable, but only god knows what's all in it.Tequilla said:What you are looking for to some degree is growth in recruiting quality year after year ... a building block approach.
In the transition class, Petersen did a good job of bringing in a handful of players that we think can be difference makers and what would appear to be a number of quality players that are going to build out the overall depth of the program.
DD did a good job of summarizing the 2015 class and I tend to agree in that we'll end up with somewhere between 6-10 real solid players out of the class and again a number of players that will drive up the overall depth of the program.
The 2016 class is projecting to be a relatively small class (15-20 kids) but the early results are very encouraging in terms of the overall quality. This is the level of class that I expect to see going forward.
When you look back at the level of mediocrity in the program over the last 5-7 years, there have been a couple of constant themes that I've seen:
1) When we've had top level talent, that top level talent is quite good ... we just don't have enough of it ... we may have 4-6 players in any given year whereas the top programs are going to have more in the 8-10 range.
2) The delta between our top end players and the remaining starters has been greater than that of the top programs in the conference ... when such a delta exists it makes it much easier for other teams to play away from your better players defensively and focus on them offensively.
3) The difference in quality between the first and second string has been vast. Top teams are able to replace injured players with similar quality depth as well as liberally rotate during games to ensure that their team is fresh in the 2nd half and in particular the 4th quarter of games.
There's no question in my mind that the tools exist to win still at the UW at a high level. What's been missing for the better part of 20+ years is a coach with the vision and focus necessary to be able to create a program that capitalizes on what is required to win at a high level. Petersen is that kind of coach. -
It's kind of a water is wet statement, but in order to be really good, Petersen is going to have to be a top 2 coach in the conference. We will very likely never have the top talent in the conference according to the rankings, but great coaches have a vision and develop lesser talent, like Harbaugh did at Stanford.
Some of this regime has been great such as the freshman last year, the OL recruiting, and the disciplined culture Petersen is building. All of that makes me hopeful for the future. However, thinking about the offensive scheme and the QB's sour me just as quickly.
