The last post I'll make about this for awhile because we obviously aren't going to agree.
The difference between the dogman "sky is not falling bullshit" is that we aren't .500 like we always were back then. We are undefeated and favored to win the rest of our games.
Our OL has gotten markedly better from last year, which normally means the coach is developing players. That didn't happen under Sark/Cozzetto. It has happened under Strausser and Pete. Coaches that develop their unit into the best in the conference deserve the benefit of the doubt. Simple fact.
So the sky isn't really falling, whether we get Sarrell or not. Any 5 star from the state is needed, but we might still have a good OL without Sarrell. That was never going to happen by not getting Garnett and the other guys Sark missed. If you can't see those differences, I can't help you. Things fucking change, and it's okay to admit it when they have.
@Gladstone, I followed TBS for years as a teenager and in my early 20's, but it's creepy to follow as a 30, 40 year old man. All is well for Husky Football right now.
But by the time you realize, "Oh no, our OL sucks again!" it is way too fucking late to fix it via better recruiting.
@Dennis_DeYoung And @CokeGreaterThanPepsi, the fact that you guys actually make the argument that players matter is what is retarded. No fucking shit players matter. Is water wet too?
You want a coach that can recruit and coach? What a fucking novel concept. I want a QB like DeShaun Watson and a RB like Fournette, but I'm not going to complain about Browning and Gaskin.
Everyone here wants Sarrell. The retarded part of this is getting mad that we "might" not have a great OL three years from now when we have all the pieces needed to get to the playoffs THIS fucking year. We have the OL to win the conference THIS fucking year. But continue to spaz out over the OL coach because some teenager might not come to UW.
I hated Petersen until this year, but I can't bitch about an undefeated coach. I can't bitch about the OL coach of the best OL of the conference because he might not get Sarrell.
If we win big the next two years, recruiting will take care of itself. Winning helps. He's not committing for a long time anyways and we have an undefeated team. The future has always been for doogs.
You kinda get it, and kinda don't. Wanting to be good in two years AS WELL as this year is like two sides of the same fucking coin. Just because they patched bullshit and chicken wire together into a usable line this year has no bearing on whether they'd be able to do the same next year.
Oddly enough our last conference champions had the same kind of O line
The last post I'll make about this for awhile because we obviously aren't going to agree.
The difference between the dogman "sky is not falling bullshit" is that we aren't .500 like we always were back then. We are undefeated and favored to win the rest of our games.
Our OL has gotten markedly better from last year, which normally means the coach is developing players. That didn't happen under Sark/Cozzetto. It has happened under Strausser and Pete. Coaches that develop their unit into the best in the conference deserve the benefit of the doubt. Simple fact.
So the sky isn't really falling, whether we get Sarrell or not. Any 5 star from the state is needed, but we might still have a good OL without Sarrell. That was never going to happen by not getting Garnett and the other guys Sark missed. If you can't see those differences, I can't help you. Things fucking change, and it's okay to admit it when they have.
@Gladstone, I followed TBS for years as a teenager and in my early 20's, but it's creepy to follow as a 30, 40 year old man. All is well for Husky Football right now.
But by the time you realize, "Oh no, our OL sucks again!" it is way too fucking late to fix it via better recruiting.
The last post I'll make about this for awhile because we obviously aren't going to agree.
The difference between the dogman "sky is not falling bullshit" is that we aren't .500 like we always were back then. We are undefeated and favored to win the rest of our games.
Our OL has gotten markedly better from last year, which normally means the coach is developing players. That didn't happen under Sark/Cozzetto. It has happened under Strausser and Pete. Coaches that develop their unit into the best in the conference deserve the benefit of the doubt. Simple fact.
So the sky isn't really falling, whether we get Sarrell or not. Any 5 star from the state is needed, but we might still have a good OL without Sarrell. That was never going to happen by not getting Garnett and the other guys Sark missed. If you can't see those differences, I can't help you. Things fucking change, and it's okay to admit it when they have.
@Gladstone, I followed TBS for years as a teenager and in my early 20's, but it's creepy to follow as a 30, 40 year old man. All is well for Husky Football right now.
But by the time you realize, "Oh no, our OL sucks again!" it is way too fucking late to fix it via better recruiting.
I hated Petersen until this year, but I can't bitch about an undefeated coach.
I swear to God, mental retardation must be contagious and all you motherfuckers in this cesspool have cross-contaminated yourselves.
I like UW coaches only when they win. Why would I have liked him before?
Do you not believe the future can in any way be predicted?
It must be amazing to live your life. Wake up each day with boundless possibilities.
Except for 1 year(the year after Kellen Moore) Boise St has had consistently excellent OLs. I think we can trust his recruiting at the position
I do trust CPand Strausser's ability to evaluate talent at the OL position.
The concern is that, for the second year in a row, it looks like they are going to miss out on nearly all their top targets.
Once they get to campus I also trust CP and Strausser to get the most out of their players. But I want an OLine that can win national championships not conference championships.
I don't even really know how you can really evaluate OLine at a HS level. Most Dtackles in HS are fucking tiny. To me it should be more about getting some big strong fuckers to really coach up.
I don't even really know how you can really evaluate OLine at a HS level. Most Dtackles in HS are fucking tiny. To me it should be more about getting some big strong fuckers to really coach up.
This
It is Doog 101 but it is also true - O line translates least well to college ball
Noted 7 wide out recruiting coach Rick Neuheisel brought in the top ranked class of O linemen one year. People forget that because they were all busts. The best of the bunch never played a down due to injury.
I'll take 5 stars any day but if a kid is 6 foot 5 300 pounds with a nasty attitude and a love of HGH we can work with him
Bama and Ohio State dominate recruiting at the D line, linebacker, running back and wide out categories. I'm all for joining in on that action.
You know what the big question mark for Bama this year was? The O line and quarterback
I don't even really know how you can really evaluate OLine at a HS level. Most Dtackles in HS are fucking tiny. To me it should be more about getting some big strong fuckers to really coach up.
This
It is Doog 101 but it is also true - O line translates least well to college ball
Noted 7 wide out recruiting coach Rick Neuheisel brought in the top ranked class of O linemen one year. People forget that because they were all busts. The best of the bunch never played a down due to injury.
I'll take 5 stars any day but if a kid is 6 foot 5 300 pounds with a nasty attitude and a love of HGH we can work with him
Bama and Ohio State dominate recruiting at the D line, linebacker, running back and wide out categories. I'm all for joining in on that action.
You know what the big question mark for Bama this year was? The O line and quarterback
But Nick coaches them up every year.
That is a pretty hot take.
BAMA signed 12 Scout top300 players on the OL in the last five years. Six top100.
And it's not even about the stars. It is about signing the guys that CP and Strausser identify as our top targets.
If we whiff on our top 5 guys I don't give a flying fuck if the sixth guy is a 4* or a 2*.
As far as OL recruiting goes, my primary complaint at this point is more about numbers and class balance than quality. And the decisions on numbers are more of a Petersen thing than a Strausser thing, I think.
All ratings are from Scout
2014 James 3-star Sosebee 2-star Turner 2-star Burleson 2-star McGary 4-star (don't know if the staff saw him as an OL or a DL, but he is an OL now) Class average: 2.6 stars
Obviously the quality in 2014 was disappointing, but Petersen and staff were left scrambling to fill up that class. Getting McGary was huge. Sosebee is contributing. The others are crap until proven otherwise. Probably about what you could expect at this stage from a class with a 2.6 star average.
2015 Roberts 4-star Hilbers 3-star Adams 4-star Class average: 3.67 stars
Adams is a stud. Roberts and Hilbers haven't done anything yet, and Roberts is still 3rd string, but they are both RS-Freshmen. A little worrisome, but it is still early.
2016 Harris 3-star (low 3-star, was probably a 2-star until UW offered) Wattenberg 4-star Class average: 3.5 stars
Harris has played and been effective, quite unexpectedly.
2017 n/a
So the 2014 class was poor, from a perceived (and probably actual) talent perspective, but it isn't really a fair evaluation of Petersen or Strausser's recruiting.
In 2015 & 2016 combined, they signed five OLs, three of whom were 4-stars and two of whom were 3-stars. That is basically on par with the overall talent ranking of the rest of those classes, excluding kickers and long snappers.
2017...obviously anxities are high.
If we look at 2015 & 2016 as the only complete and fair data sets to evaluate, the recruiting at the OL position group isn't obviously deficient relative to the talent that is being brought in at other positions. Small sample size and all that, but there isn't really anything else to look at.
I don't even really know how you can really evaluate OLine at a HS level. Most Dtackles in HS are fucking tiny. To me it should be more about getting some big strong fuckers to really coach up.
This
It is Doog 101 but it is also true - O line translates least well to college ball
Noted 7 wide out recruiting coach Rick Neuheisel brought in the top ranked class of O linemen one year. People forget that because they were all busts. The best of the bunch never played a down due to injury.
I'll take 5 stars any day but if a kid is 6 foot 5 300 pounds with a nasty attitude and a love of HGH we can work with him
Bama and Ohio State dominate recruiting at the D line, linebacker, running back and wide out categories. I'm all for joining in on that action.
You know what the big question mark for Bama this year was? The O line and quarterback
But Nick coaches them up every year.
That is a pretty hot take.
BAMA signed 12 Scout top300 players on the OL in the last five years. Six top100.
And it's not even about the stars. It is about signing the guys that CP and Strausser identify as our top targets.
If we whiff on our top 5 guys I don't give a flying fuck if the sixth guy is a 4* or a 2*.
Sounds like you lead a miserable and pathetic life and need to take a walk with your wife to get some perspective
I don't disagree with having some levels of LIPO matters a bit here ...
I also agree with the point that @RaceBannon made that OL recruiting can be a giant crapshoot as it is the hardest to look forward on with regards to player development, weight room training, etc.
That being said when you're recruiting guys that are almost sure fire 1st round picks in the NFL with the right player development and some of them are located in the backyard .. you need to keep those kids at home ... and the reason why is because the surest way to make sure that you have a consistently high caliber team is to be dominant on both sides of the line.
The reality is that the numbers we've recruited on the OL aren't where they need to be in the years past and going forward. They are dangerously thin. You could probably get away with that if you are recruiting studs and have no issues with player development and depth. But if you're trying to get projects ready to play before they are ready the results can be a disaster.
There's nothing that can short circuit a talented team more than having a shit OL ... that's why people are worried because they can see that possibility down the road coming to fruition
I don't even really know how you can really evaluate OLine at a HS level. Most Dtackles in HS are fucking tiny. To me it should be more about getting some big strong fuckers to really coach up.
Yeah. It's a total crap shoot. Doesn't matter who you get.
The fact that all the top schools offer the same guys probably doesn't mean anything.
Jesus, Roadie... Generally you do the lord's work on these boards and you're often one of my favorite classy poasters, but this is some truly illogical and malinformed bullshit you're spouting here... Here are five reasons why.
1. As someone already pointed out... Enjoying the current success and keeping an eye towards the future is not, and never has been, mutually exclusive. That's a bizarre fucking argument.
2. Our OL has been a steaming barrel of monkey semen the last two years, and quite frankly, was pretty underwhelming during the preseason this year. They've really turned it on the last two games, but I think we can all agree that this came against Oregon and Stanford teams that can hardly be considered vintage by recent standards. So to me, the jury is still out on Strausser as an OL coach and developer of talent.
3. The jury is certainly in, however, on Strausser as a recruiter. Strausser couldn't recruit Spooge to a fucking NAMBLA rally. The OL numbers the last few years have not been good, 3 OL in 2015, 2 OL in 2016, and so far (with very few spots remaining) 0 OL in 2017. This is going to cause problems in the future, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
4. It's not just that Fozzy is probably going to The Farm (ILTCITF, IWILTD), but that we also whiffed on every other top OL target this year... Vera Tucker, Wyatt Davis, Forsyth etc.
5. Finally, hanging out around a recruiting message board, then judging and belittling the people who express strong opinions about the very topic the message board caters to, is some truly Grinolds'esque shit. Nobody was clamoring for your opinion on this subject, and if you're that offended that people are upset about OL recruiting, then you probably don't need to keep poasting.
Perhaps you could take advantage of this crisp fall Tuesday and enjoy a long walk on the beach instead. It's possible that as you breath in the salty air and listen to the gentle, ryhthmic crashing of the waves against the sun-baked sand, some perspective might very well be gained.
Just don't get any more sand in your vagina while you're there.
I don't even really know how you can really evaluate OLine at a HS level. Most Dtackles in HS are fucking tiny. To me it should be more about getting some big strong fuckers to really coach up.
Yeah. It's a total crap shoot. Doesn't matter who you get.
The fact that all the top schools offer the same guys probably doesn't mean anything.
It's important to remember that UW only lost 1 OL after the 2015 season (Tifunga) and will lose only two after 2016 (Eldrenkamp and Brostek) so losing 2 means you replace their scholarships with 2 or 3 (can't remember if Kneip is on scholarship).
I think the staff will get Henry B (OT) and the Sacramento OG (Orlando Umana) with Sarrell TBD, which makes for 2 or 3 OL.
Comments
It must be amazing to live your life. Wake up each day with boundless possibilities.
Tuff fuckers who "do what it takes"
If you know what I mean
The concern is that, for the second year in a row, it looks like they are going to miss out on nearly all their top targets.
Once they get to campus I also trust CP and Strausser to get the most out of their players. But I want an OLine that can win national championships not conference championships.
It is Doog 101 but it is also true - O line translates least well to college ball
Noted 7 wide out recruiting coach Rick Neuheisel brought in the top ranked class of O linemen one year. People forget that because they were all busts. The best of the bunch never played a down due to injury.
I'll take 5 stars any day but if a kid is 6 foot 5 300 pounds with a nasty attitude and a love of HGH we can work with him
Bama and Ohio State dominate recruiting at the D line, linebacker, running back and wide out categories. I'm all for joining in on that action.
You know what the big question mark for Bama this year was? The O line and quarterback
But Nick coaches them up every year.
Value is in the hype
BAMA signed 12 Scout top300 players on the OL in the last five years. Six top100.
And it's not even about the stars. It is about signing the guys that CP and Strausser identify as our top targets.
If we whiff on our top 5 guys I don't give a flying fuck if the sixth guy is a 4* or a 2*.
All ratings are from Scout
2014
James 3-star
Sosebee 2-star
Turner 2-star
Burleson 2-star
McGary 4-star (don't know if the staff saw him as an OL or a DL, but he is an OL now)
Class average: 2.6 stars
Obviously the quality in 2014 was disappointing, but Petersen and staff were left scrambling to fill up that class. Getting McGary was huge. Sosebee is contributing. The others are crap until proven otherwise. Probably about what you could expect at this stage from a class with a 2.6 star average.
2015
Roberts 4-star
Hilbers 3-star
Adams 4-star
Class average: 3.67 stars
Adams is a stud. Roberts and Hilbers haven't done anything yet, and Roberts is still 3rd string, but they are both RS-Freshmen. A little worrisome, but it is still early.
2016
Harris 3-star (low 3-star, was probably a 2-star until UW offered)
Wattenberg 4-star
Class average: 3.5 stars
Harris has played and been effective, quite unexpectedly.
2017
n/a
So the 2014 class was poor, from a perceived (and probably actual) talent perspective, but it isn't really a fair evaluation of Petersen or Strausser's recruiting.
In 2015 & 2016 combined, they signed five OLs, three of whom were 4-stars and two of whom were 3-stars. That is basically on par with the overall talent ranking of the rest of those classes, excluding kickers and long snappers.
2017...obviously anxities are high.
If we look at 2015 & 2016 as the only complete and fair data sets to evaluate, the recruiting at the OL position group isn't obviously deficient relative to the talent that is being brought in at other positions. Small sample size and all that, but there isn't really anything else to look at.
I don't disagree with having some levels of LIPO matters a bit here ...
I also agree with the point that @RaceBannon made that OL recruiting can be a giant crapshoot as it is the hardest to look forward on with regards to player development, weight room training, etc.
That being said when you're recruiting guys that are almost sure fire 1st round picks in the NFL with the right player development and some of them are located in the backyard .. you need to keep those kids at home ... and the reason why is because the surest way to make sure that you have a consistently high caliber team is to be dominant on both sides of the line.
The reality is that the numbers we've recruited on the OL aren't where they need to be in the years past and going forward. They are dangerously thin. You could probably get away with that if you are recruiting studs and have no issues with player development and depth. But if you're trying to get projects ready to play before they are ready the results can be a disaster.
There's nothing that can short circuit a talented team more than having a shit OL ... that's why people are worried because they can see that possibility down the road coming to fruition
The fact that all the top schools offer the same guys probably doesn't mean anything.
1. As someone already pointed out... Enjoying the current success and keeping an eye towards the future is not, and never has been, mutually exclusive. That's a bizarre fucking argument.
2. Our OL has been a steaming barrel of monkey semen the last two years, and quite frankly, was pretty underwhelming during the preseason this year. They've really turned it on the last two games, but I think we can all agree that this came against Oregon and Stanford teams that can hardly be considered vintage by recent standards. So to me, the jury is still out on Strausser as an OL coach and developer of talent.
3. The jury is certainly in, however, on Strausser as a recruiter. Strausser couldn't recruit Spooge to a fucking NAMBLA rally. The OL numbers the last few years have not been good, 3 OL in 2015, 2 OL in 2016, and so far (with very few spots remaining) 0 OL in 2017. This is going to cause problems in the future, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
4. It's not just that Fozzy is probably going to The Farm (ILTCITF, IWILTD), but that we also whiffed on every other top OL target this year... Vera Tucker, Wyatt Davis, Forsyth etc.
5. Finally, hanging out around a recruiting message board, then judging and belittling the people who express strong opinions about the very topic the message board caters to, is some truly Grinolds'esque shit. Nobody was clamoring for your opinion on this subject, and if you're that offended that people are upset about OL recruiting, then you probably don't need to keep poasting.
Perhaps you could take advantage of this crisp fall Tuesday and enjoy a long walk on the beach instead. It's possible that as you breath in the salty air and listen to the gentle, ryhthmic crashing of the waves against the sun-baked sand, some perspective might very well be gained.
Just don't get any more sand in your vagina while you're there.
I think the staff will get Henry B (OT) and the Sacramento OG (Orlando Umana) with Sarrell TBD, which makes for 2 or 3 OL.