Fozzy to Stanford
Comments
-
Well, i'll put it this way:
- AVT, coached by husky legend but with resurgent USC, even if he's a "norcal" kid. Hard to argue that going to USC is somehow a slap in the face or a "miss"
- Bainivalu. Back yard prospect commits to us. Makes sense, he didn't seem to do as much of the pub camps as others too, I kinda knew this was coming.
- Fozzy, guy appears cerebral and extremely capable, identifies with Stanford who by everyone's account fits the OL bill or at least the hype. Realizes that UW is here to stay with Petersen, is probably torn with that realization. Shaw turned around the Furd season which makes it less difficult to turn down the emotional attachment in Fozzy's head coupled with probably mother support for Furd. Doesn't appear that Shaw is on any hot seat anymore so he can play future close to his vest. Fozzy can't read the poker cards so he's left with his initial emotional investment versus the new UW reality under Petersen.
But how about what has happened lately? Pulled the top two players out of Oregon including a very much need DL high-end prospect.
2018 kids already lining up for UW.
The train is chugging forward, i'm just saying that it's one year premature for OL worries. If we are swinging and missing next year then maybe we can string up Strausser by the gonads. But let's wait another year.
-
I'm not the one that has talked about how great the OL is this year ... but solid deflection by you ...RoadDawg55 said:
Since when do you have standards? You've defended some horrific performances for years but since you are obsessed with me, you would pretend like the OL had a bad year if we get beat by an elite team?Tequilla said:
Cart before the horse ...RoadDawg55 said:
We already are competing on a national level, so yes it is beyond retarded to complain about the OL coach of a really good OL from a team very likely to make the playoff. I've only posted that line of thought maybe 20-25 times.Tequilla said:
Assuming that Fozzy doesn't come here (LIPO) ... you do realize that when it comes to the 3 primary OL targets that we had this year in this class we will have gotten 1 of 3?RoadDawg55 said:
I love Strausser and think it's beyond retarded to complain about him for any reason.whuggy said:
We haven't got Banner this year andRoadDawg55 said:
We didn't survive no Garnett or Banner at all. Weird logic.whuggy said:
Yep. We survived no Garnett and Banner.Meek said:Look, our smallest, youngest and weakest offensive lineman who is a true freshman and was maybe a 3* is the guy that the tv announcers are praising week in and week out for his amazing play.
i think we'll be okay without mr. sarrell.
But 2018 I hope the recruiting focuses on
both lines. That's how you stay elite.
The 2013-2015 teams would have been quite a bit better with those guys, especially Garnett.
Banner would have thrived under Petersen. No way would this staff let him weigh 380 like he did at USC.
have a pretty damn good line. If we don't
have Sarell next year we'll still have a better
line than this year. Pretty straightfoward
to me. Love to have him but people wetting
their pants when it looks like he's headed
elsewhere, WTF? Strauser seems pretty damn good
at development. Don't think Shelton or Eldenkramp
were very high rated but look where they are now.
And Harris is the next low rated jewel.
If Fozzy doesn't come, he doesn't come. Not much more anyone could have done than win the conference, show we can have a great OL, and have the head coach arrive in a helicopter to a high school game.
The one we got is a local kid ...
The local national recruit (top 5 player by any service) is going to Stanford ...
The out of state kid from the Bay Area who is coached by a UW legend has chosen USC ...
IF this program is to compete at a national level, as others have stated, it will be because we are able to compete first and foremost on the OL. The reality is that the top 2 targets we had in this class we'll likely miss on both. Bainivalu is a really good OL prospect and nothing to sneeze at ... but if he is your 3rd OL in the class you are dancing in the streets. If he's your top OL recruit in this class then you probably aren't building the kind of combination of depth/talent needed to compete with the Alabama's, Ohio State's, Michigan, and even USC's to the point where you walk onto the field knowing you are going to beat them.
What other positional groupings on the field can you say that about going forward given what is currently on the roster and where this class has recruited?
Still want to stand by the fact that it's beyond retarted to complain about Strausser for any reason?
We have proven that we can compete at the PAC level ... and BTW our OL got their shit pushed in in the game against elite DL talent that we lost this year.
We haven't proven shit on a national scale ...
You're FS enough to say that if we get our shit pushed in by Alabama or Ohio St or Clemson that those teams do it to everybody so it's not that big of a deal.
As for obsessed with you ... far from it. Anybody that likes to take screen shots and play Monday Morning QB years after the fact are the ones that are tied to being obsessive.
As for you, I just don't like you ... particularly how you are Johnny Come Lately now that this team is successful and you now want to get in the discussion that you left because you were convinced Pete would never be successful here ... if I was obsessed with you I would go back to all the stupid shit you said on the HFP and call you out on it ... anybody that wants to do that would be left with a shit ton of gold -
@animate
I'll be the last person to talk about general recruiting and saying it isn't going well ...
As for the OL this year, it's not just this year ... I suggest you find some of @Dennis_DeYoung comments on the topic -
We're not going 1 for 3 on local kids.Tequilla said:For those that like to say 1 in 3 recruiting is good ... I'd also like to point out that where that came from was that IF there were 3 elite prospects out of SoCal, the idea being that USC would get 1, UCLA would get 1, and UW would get 1 ... and that the reason the UW prospect would be better was because he'd get better coaching and have more of a chip on his shoulder. 1 in 3 never applied to local kids.
As it pertains to OL recruiting and the 1 of 3 ...
Bainivalu SHOULD have been a slam dunk given location and that he was more of a PAC recruit than he was a national recruit.
Fozzy being an in-state kid SHOULD be a minor favorite to UW but going nationally isn't a complete shock historically ... the big miss here (assuming that he goes to Stanford) wasn't that he left but that there was at best a very small window where having any expectation that we could be in the lead was reasonable.
AVT wasn't a SoCal kid ... he was a NoCal kid. Because of that, the USC/UCLA pull SHOULD have been less ... add to it the fact that he goes to a school that not only have we recruited reasonably well as of late (see Camilo Eifler), but the HC of that school is probably on the short list of all-time Husky Legends in Nip ... this is a kid that we should have been able to win over with high end recruiting ... instead he chose USC BEFORE they had even turn things around ... that's a FAIL by us in recruiting.
You are all over the place.
Just stop. -
Tequilla, Nobody cares. I always said I would love Pete if he won. I like discussing Husky Football because I've been a fan my whole life. What a confusing concept.
To you and many other dumb ass doog's surprise, I enjoy it when UW is good. -
He was being crooted by Michigan lol STFUTequilla said:For those that like to say 1 in 3 recruiting is good ... I'd also like to point out that where that came from was that IF there were 3 elite prospects out of SoCal, the idea being that USC would get 1, UCLA would get 1, and UW would get 1 ... and that the reason the UW prospect would be better was because he'd get better coaching and have more of a chip on his shoulder. 1 in 3 never applied to local kids.
As it pertains to OL recruiting and the 1 of 3 ...
Bainivalu SHOULD have been a slam dunk given location and that he was more of a PAC recruit than he was a national recruit.
Fozzy being an in-state kid SHOULD be a minor favorite to UW but going nationally isn't a complete shock historically ... the big miss here (assuming that he goes to Stanford) wasn't that he left but that there was at best a very small window where having any expectation that we could be in the lead was reasonable.
AVT wasn't a SoCal kid ... he was a NoCal kid. Because of that, the USC/UCLA pull SHOULD have been less ... add to it the fact that he goes to a school that not only have we recruited reasonably well as of late (see Camilo Eifler), but the HC of that school is probably on the short list of all-time Husky Legends in Nip ... this is a kid that we should have been able to win over with high end recruiting ... instead he chose USC BEFORE they had even turn things around ... that's a FAIL by us in recruiting. -
Can you guys take this off line?
-
AVT also chose USC before UW started rolling. so what is the point there?Tequilla said:For those that like to say 1 in 3 recruiting is good ... I'd also like to point out that where that came from was that IF there were 3 elite prospects out of SoCal, the idea being that USC would get 1, UCLA would get 1, and UW would get 1 ... and that the reason the UW prospect would be better was because he'd get better coaching and have more of a chip on his shoulder. 1 in 3 never applied to local kids.
As it pertains to OL recruiting and the 1 of 3 ...
Bainivalu SHOULD have been a slam dunk given location and that he was more of a PAC recruit than he was a national recruit.
Fozzy being an in-state kid SHOULD be a minor favorite to UW but going nationally isn't a complete shock historically ... the big miss here (assuming that he goes to Stanford) wasn't that he left but that there was at best a very small window where having any expectation that we could be in the lead was reasonable.
AVT wasn't a SoCal kid ... he was a NoCal kid. Because of that, the USC/UCLA pull SHOULD have been less ... add to it the fact that he goes to a school that not only have we recruited reasonably well as of late (see Camilo Eifler), but the HC of that school is probably on the short list of all-time Husky Legends in Nip ... this is a kid that we should have been able to win over with high end recruiting ... instead he chose USC BEFORE they had even turn things around ... that's a FAIL by us in recruiting. -
Meek said:
Can you guys take this off line?
-
Well, I hear ya.Tequilla said:@animate
I'll be the last person to talk about general recruiting and saying it isn't going well ...
As for the OL this year, it's not just this year ... I suggest you find some of @Dennis_DeYoung comments on the topic
How about this?
It is what it is. Strausser doesn't appear to be a recruiting savant, ok I get that. But there seems to be some ol development there that we can be happy with.
Perhaps we could wish that strausser could be the ol equivalent of tosh lupoi. But he isn't so let's allow development to be strausser's strength then allow the team to win more and be further entrenched on the national scene under Petersen and get Petersen to close out the big uglies in the future (and QBs).
I mean, apart from complaining about strausser, what are you going to do? Just allow the play on the field to do the talking. -
Also pretty sure Michigan was full on the OL and he may not have had a commitable offer ... Dennis or Pepsi can probably speak better to thatbackthepack said:
He was being crooted by Michigan lol STFUTequilla said:For those that like to say 1 in 3 recruiting is good ... I'd also like to point out that where that came from was that IF there were 3 elite prospects out of SoCal, the idea being that USC would get 1, UCLA would get 1, and UW would get 1 ... and that the reason the UW prospect would be better was because he'd get better coaching and have more of a chip on his shoulder. 1 in 3 never applied to local kids.
As it pertains to OL recruiting and the 1 of 3 ...
Bainivalu SHOULD have been a slam dunk given location and that he was more of a PAC recruit than he was a national recruit.
Fozzy being an in-state kid SHOULD be a minor favorite to UW but going nationally isn't a complete shock historically ... the big miss here (assuming that he goes to Stanford) wasn't that he left but that there was at best a very small window where having any expectation that we could be in the lead was reasonable.
AVT wasn't a SoCal kid ... he was a NoCal kid. Because of that, the USC/UCLA pull SHOULD have been less ... add to it the fact that he goes to a school that not only have we recruited reasonably well as of late (see Camilo Eifler), but the HC of that school is probably on the short list of all-time Husky Legends in Nip ... this is a kid that we should have been able to win over with high end recruiting ... instead he chose USC BEFORE they had even turn things around ... that's a FAIL by us in recruiting. -
Sounds to me like you are a bandwagon front runner to meRoadDawg55 said:Tequilla, Nobody cares. I always said I would love Pete if he won. I like discussing Husky Football because I've been a fan my whole life. What a confusing concept.
To you and many other dumb ass doog's surprise, I enjoy it when UW is good. -
Because I'm excited UW is actually good? I watched all the games when they sucked too.Tequilla said:
Sounds to me like you are a bandwagon front runner to meRoadDawg55 said:Tequilla, Nobody cares. I always said I would love Pete if he won. I like discussing Husky Football because I've been a fan my whole life. What a confusing concept.
To you and many other dumb ass doog's surprise, I enjoy it when UW is good. -
Vagina. Sand. Full.Tequilla said:
Sounds to me like you are a bandwagon front runner to meRoadDawg55 said:Tequilla, Nobody cares. I always said I would love Pete if he won. I like discussing Husky Football because I've been a fan my whole life. What a confusing concept.
To you and many other dumb ass doog's surprise, I enjoy it when UW is good.
-
So we should go ahead and add Bainavalu to your list of husky o line recruits that don't actually count?Tequilla said:
Also pretty sure Michigan was full on the OL and he may not have had a commitable offer ... Dennis or Pepsi can probably speak better to thatbackthepack said:
He was being crooted by Michigan lol STFUTequilla said:For those that like to say 1 in 3 recruiting is good ... I'd also like to point out that where that came from was that IF there were 3 elite prospects out of SoCal, the idea being that USC would get 1, UCLA would get 1, and UW would get 1 ... and that the reason the UW prospect would be better was because he'd get better coaching and have more of a chip on his shoulder. 1 in 3 never applied to local kids.
As it pertains to OL recruiting and the 1 of 3 ...
Bainivalu SHOULD have been a slam dunk given location and that he was more of a PAC recruit than he was a national recruit.
Fozzy being an in-state kid SHOULD be a minor favorite to UW but going nationally isn't a complete shock historically ... the big miss here (assuming that he goes to Stanford) wasn't that he left but that there was at best a very small window where having any expectation that we could be in the lead was reasonable.
AVT wasn't a SoCal kid ... he was a NoCal kid. Because of that, the USC/UCLA pull SHOULD have been less ... add to it the fact that he goes to a school that not only have we recruited reasonably well as of late (see Camilo Eifler), but the HC of that school is probably on the short list of all-time Husky Legends in Nip ... this is a kid that we should have been able to win over with high end recruiting ... instead he chose USC BEFORE they had even turn things around ... that's a FAIL by us in recruiting.
-
Go find any place where I said that ...bananasnblondes said:
So we should go ahead and add Bainavalu to your list of husky o line recruits that don't actually count?Tequilla said:
Also pretty sure Michigan was full on the OL and he may not have had a commitable offer ... Dennis or Pepsi can probably speak better to thatbackthepack said:
He was being crooted by Michigan lol STFUTequilla said:For those that like to say 1 in 3 recruiting is good ... I'd also like to point out that where that came from was that IF there were 3 elite prospects out of SoCal, the idea being that USC would get 1, UCLA would get 1, and UW would get 1 ... and that the reason the UW prospect would be better was because he'd get better coaching and have more of a chip on his shoulder. 1 in 3 never applied to local kids.
As it pertains to OL recruiting and the 1 of 3 ...
Bainivalu SHOULD have been a slam dunk given location and that he was more of a PAC recruit than he was a national recruit.
Fozzy being an in-state kid SHOULD be a minor favorite to UW but going nationally isn't a complete shock historically ... the big miss here (assuming that he goes to Stanford) wasn't that he left but that there was at best a very small window where having any expectation that we could be in the lead was reasonable.
AVT wasn't a SoCal kid ... he was a NoCal kid. Because of that, the USC/UCLA pull SHOULD have been less ... add to it the fact that he goes to a school that not only have we recruited reasonably well as of late (see Camilo Eifler), but the HC of that school is probably on the short list of all-time Husky Legends in Nip ... this is a kid that we should have been able to win over with high end recruiting ... instead he chose USC BEFORE they had even turn things around ... that's a FAIL by us in recruiting.
What I said was that you need a strong and deep class if competing at the national level ... if he is your 3rd or 4th OL that's a GREAT class ... if he is your best probably not deep enough ...
-
Wait if Bainivalu is your best online recruit that's a problem?Tequilla said:
Go find any place where I said that ...bananasnblondes said:
So we should go ahead and add Bainavalu to your list of husky o line recruits that don't actually count?Tequilla said:
Also pretty sure Michigan was full on the OL and he may not have had a commitable offer ... Dennis or Pepsi can probably speak better to thatbackthepack said:
He was being crooted by Michigan lol STFUTequilla said:For those that like to say 1 in 3 recruiting is good ... I'd also like to point out that where that came from was that IF there were 3 elite prospects out of SoCal, the idea being that USC would get 1, UCLA would get 1, and UW would get 1 ... and that the reason the UW prospect would be better was because he'd get better coaching and have more of a chip on his shoulder. 1 in 3 never applied to local kids.
As it pertains to OL recruiting and the 1 of 3 ...
Bainivalu SHOULD have been a slam dunk given location and that he was more of a PAC recruit than he was a national recruit.
Fozzy being an in-state kid SHOULD be a minor favorite to UW but going nationally isn't a complete shock historically ... the big miss here (assuming that he goes to Stanford) wasn't that he left but that there was at best a very small window where having any expectation that we could be in the lead was reasonable.
AVT wasn't a SoCal kid ... he was a NoCal kid. Because of that, the USC/UCLA pull SHOULD have been less ... add to it the fact that he goes to a school that not only have we recruited reasonably well as of late (see Camilo Eifler), but the HC of that school is probably on the short list of all-time Husky Legends in Nip ... this is a kid that we should have been able to win over with high end recruiting ... instead he chose USC BEFORE they had even turn things around ... that's a FAIL by us in recruiting.
What I said was that you need a strong and deep class if competing at the national level ... if he is your 3rd or 4th OL that's a GREAT class ... if he is your best probably not deep enough ...
Just stop talking. -
According to 24/7 Bainivulu is the highest rated OL Petersen has ever gotten. Higher than Adams, McGary, Roberts, and Wattenberg.Tequilla said:
Go find any place where I said that ...bananasnblondes said:
So we should go ahead and add Bainavalu to your list of husky o line recruits that don't actually count?Tequilla said:
Also pretty sure Michigan was full on the OL and he may not have had a commitable offer ... Dennis or Pepsi can probably speak better to thatbackthepack said:
He was being crooted by Michigan lol STFUTequilla said:For those that like to say 1 in 3 recruiting is good ... I'd also like to point out that where that came from was that IF there were 3 elite prospects out of SoCal, the idea being that USC would get 1, UCLA would get 1, and UW would get 1 ... and that the reason the UW prospect would be better was because he'd get better coaching and have more of a chip on his shoulder. 1 in 3 never applied to local kids.
As it pertains to OL recruiting and the 1 of 3 ...
Bainivalu SHOULD have been a slam dunk given location and that he was more of a PAC recruit than he was a national recruit.
Fozzy being an in-state kid SHOULD be a minor favorite to UW but going nationally isn't a complete shock historically ... the big miss here (assuming that he goes to Stanford) wasn't that he left but that there was at best a very small window where having any expectation that we could be in the lead was reasonable.
AVT wasn't a SoCal kid ... he was a NoCal kid. Because of that, the USC/UCLA pull SHOULD have been less ... add to it the fact that he goes to a school that not only have we recruited reasonably well as of late (see Camilo Eifler), but the HC of that school is probably on the short list of all-time Husky Legends in Nip ... this is a kid that we should have been able to win over with high end recruiting ... instead he chose USC BEFORE they had even turn things around ... that's a FAIL by us in recruiting.
What I said was that you need a strong and deep class if competing at the national level ... if he is your 3rd or 4th OL that's a GREAT class ... if he is your best probably not deep enough ... -
And how many OL do you start?RoadDawg55 said:
According to 24/7 Bainivulu is the highest rated OL Petersen has ever gotten. Higher than Adams, McGary, Roberts, and Wattenberg.Tequilla said:
Go find any place where I said that ...bananasnblondes said:
So we should go ahead and add Bainavalu to your list of husky o line recruits that don't actually count?Tequilla said:
Also pretty sure Michigan was full on the OL and he may not have had a commitable offer ... Dennis or Pepsi can probably speak better to thatbackthepack said:
He was being crooted by Michigan lol STFUTequilla said:For those that like to say 1 in 3 recruiting is good ... I'd also like to point out that where that came from was that IF there were 3 elite prospects out of SoCal, the idea being that USC would get 1, UCLA would get 1, and UW would get 1 ... and that the reason the UW prospect would be better was because he'd get better coaching and have more of a chip on his shoulder. 1 in 3 never applied to local kids.
As it pertains to OL recruiting and the 1 of 3 ...
Bainivalu SHOULD have been a slam dunk given location and that he was more of a PAC recruit than he was a national recruit.
Fozzy being an in-state kid SHOULD be a minor favorite to UW but going nationally isn't a complete shock historically ... the big miss here (assuming that he goes to Stanford) wasn't that he left but that there was at best a very small window where having any expectation that we could be in the lead was reasonable.
AVT wasn't a SoCal kid ... he was a NoCal kid. Because of that, the USC/UCLA pull SHOULD have been less ... add to it the fact that he goes to a school that not only have we recruited reasonably well as of late (see Camilo Eifler), but the HC of that school is probably on the short list of all-time Husky Legends in Nip ... this is a kid that we should have been able to win over with high end recruiting ... instead he chose USC BEFORE they had even turn things around ... that's a FAIL by us in recruiting.
What I said was that you need a strong and deep class if competing at the national level ... if he is your 3rd or 4th OL that's a GREAT class ... if he is your best probably not deep enough ...
You need more than 1 elite high end guy per class ... I know that's hard for you and a few others around here to understand. -
Attn: Tequila
-
FUCK OFF!!!bananasnblondes said:Attn: Tequila
-
You said if he was your best online recruit you have problems. Do you even listen to yourself or are you tl;dr for yourself?Tequilla said:
And how many OL do you start?RoadDawg55 said:
According to 24/7 Bainivulu is the highest rated OL Petersen has ever gotten. Higher than Adams, McGary, Roberts, and Wattenberg.Tequilla said:
Go find any place where I said that ...bananasnblondes said:
So we should go ahead and add Bainavalu to your list of husky o line recruits that don't actually count?Tequilla said:
Also pretty sure Michigan was full on the OL and he may not have had a commitable offer ... Dennis or Pepsi can probably speak better to thatbackthepack said:
He was being crooted by Michigan lol STFUTequilla said:For those that like to say 1 in 3 recruiting is good ... I'd also like to point out that where that came from was that IF there were 3 elite prospects out of SoCal, the idea being that USC would get 1, UCLA would get 1, and UW would get 1 ... and that the reason the UW prospect would be better was because he'd get better coaching and have more of a chip on his shoulder. 1 in 3 never applied to local kids.
As it pertains to OL recruiting and the 1 of 3 ...
Bainivalu SHOULD have been a slam dunk given location and that he was more of a PAC recruit than he was a national recruit.
Fozzy being an in-state kid SHOULD be a minor favorite to UW but going nationally isn't a complete shock historically ... the big miss here (assuming that he goes to Stanford) wasn't that he left but that there was at best a very small window where having any expectation that we could be in the lead was reasonable.
AVT wasn't a SoCal kid ... he was a NoCal kid. Because of that, the USC/UCLA pull SHOULD have been less ... add to it the fact that he goes to a school that not only have we recruited reasonably well as of late (see Camilo Eifler), but the HC of that school is probably on the short list of all-time Husky Legends in Nip ... this is a kid that we should have been able to win over with high end recruiting ... instead he chose USC BEFORE they had even turn things around ... that's a FAIL by us in recruiting.
What I said was that you need a strong and deep class if competing at the national level ... if he is your 3rd or 4th OL that's a GREAT class ... if he is your best probably not deep enough ...
You need more than 1 elite high end guy per class ... I know that's hard for you and a few others around here to understand. -
I wish we were taking more. I somewhat understand complaining about quantity. It's also been overblown.Tequilla said:
And how many OL do you start?RoadDawg55 said:
According to 24/7 Bainivulu is the highest rated OL Petersen has ever gotten. Higher than Adams, McGary, Roberts, and Wattenberg.Tequilla said:
Go find any place where I said that ...bananasnblondes said:
So we should go ahead and add Bainavalu to your list of husky o line recruits that don't actually count?Tequilla said:
Also pretty sure Michigan was full on the OL and he may not have had a commitable offer ... Dennis or Pepsi can probably speak better to thatbackthepack said:
He was being crooted by Michigan lol STFUTequilla said:For those that like to say 1 in 3 recruiting is good ... I'd also like to point out that where that came from was that IF there were 3 elite prospects out of SoCal, the idea being that USC would get 1, UCLA would get 1, and UW would get 1 ... and that the reason the UW prospect would be better was because he'd get better coaching and have more of a chip on his shoulder. 1 in 3 never applied to local kids.
As it pertains to OL recruiting and the 1 of 3 ...
Bainivalu SHOULD have been a slam dunk given location and that he was more of a PAC recruit than he was a national recruit.
Fozzy being an in-state kid SHOULD be a minor favorite to UW but going nationally isn't a complete shock historically ... the big miss here (assuming that he goes to Stanford) wasn't that he left but that there was at best a very small window where having any expectation that we could be in the lead was reasonable.
AVT wasn't a SoCal kid ... he was a NoCal kid. Because of that, the USC/UCLA pull SHOULD have been less ... add to it the fact that he goes to a school that not only have we recruited reasonably well as of late (see Camilo Eifler), but the HC of that school is probably on the short list of all-time Husky Legends in Nip ... this is a kid that we should have been able to win over with high end recruiting ... instead he chose USC BEFORE they had even turn things around ... that's a FAIL by us in recruiting.
What I said was that you need a strong and deep class if competing at the national level ... if he is your 3rd or 4th OL that's a GREAT class ... if he is your best probably not deep enough ...
You need more than 1 elite high end guy per class ... I know that's hard for you and a few others around here to understand.
We are losing two OL (Eldrenkamp, Brostek) before attrition. Bainivulu and Sarrell/the new plan B guy will replace. They were never taking more than 3. It's a small class. If you can't realize this is what UW coaches are doing than you are dumb.
What are you even arguing at this point? Does UW have a good OL? Are they improving? Should they be better next year? Is Strausser doing a good job?
The answers are yes, yes, yes, and yes.
As I noted in an earlier post, there doesn't seem to be anything else they could do to get Sarrell.
"Oh, fuck the on field product. Strausser didn't get Fozzy or some kid from California. If we want to be elite in 2019 we need better OL recruits."
Meanwhile our current team with an OL coached by Strausser is going to the fucking playoff. -
We're competing at a national level right now with Sark retreads and young Pete recruits.Tequilla said:
Go find any place where I said that ...bananasnblondes said:
So we should go ahead and add Bainavalu to your list of husky o line recruits that don't actually count?Tequilla said:
Also pretty sure Michigan was full on the OL and he may not have had a commitable offer ... Dennis or Pepsi can probably speak better to thatbackthepack said:
He was being crooted by Michigan lol STFUTequilla said:For those that like to say 1 in 3 recruiting is good ... I'd also like to point out that where that came from was that IF there were 3 elite prospects out of SoCal, the idea being that USC would get 1, UCLA would get 1, and UW would get 1 ... and that the reason the UW prospect would be better was because he'd get better coaching and have more of a chip on his shoulder. 1 in 3 never applied to local kids.
As it pertains to OL recruiting and the 1 of 3 ...
Bainivalu SHOULD have been a slam dunk given location and that he was more of a PAC recruit than he was a national recruit.
Fozzy being an in-state kid SHOULD be a minor favorite to UW but going nationally isn't a complete shock historically ... the big miss here (assuming that he goes to Stanford) wasn't that he left but that there was at best a very small window where having any expectation that we could be in the lead was reasonable.
AVT wasn't a SoCal kid ... he was a NoCal kid. Because of that, the USC/UCLA pull SHOULD have been less ... add to it the fact that he goes to a school that not only have we recruited reasonably well as of late (see Camilo Eifler), but the HC of that school is probably on the short list of all-time Husky Legends in Nip ... this is a kid that we should have been able to win over with high end recruiting ... instead he chose USC BEFORE they had even turn things around ... that's a FAIL by us in recruiting.
What I said was that you need a strong and deep class if competing at the national level ... if he is your 3rd or 4th OL that's a GREAT class ... if he is your best probably not deep enough ...
Everyone wants Fozzy, but everyone wants wins more. The lag effect is in full swing.
A. Minus SC we've dominated up front and babushka called a game that allowed their pass rush to tee-off.
B.Strausser doesn't get heat until his unit on the field sucks/underperforms, you know, what he's paid for. -
My point being that if he's the only elite guy that you have in a class you're likely to fall short over time because you need numbers at the position, time for players to develop, provide room to cover injuries, etc.Meek said:
You said if he was your best online recruit you have problems. Do you even listen to yourself or are you tl;dr for yourself?Tequilla said:
And how many OL do you start?RoadDawg55 said:
According to 24/7 Bainivulu is the highest rated OL Petersen has ever gotten. Higher than Adams, McGary, Roberts, and Wattenberg.Tequilla said:
Go find any place where I said that ...bananasnblondes said:
So we should go ahead and add Bainavalu to your list of husky o line recruits that don't actually count?Tequilla said:
Also pretty sure Michigan was full on the OL and he may not have had a commitable offer ... Dennis or Pepsi can probably speak better to thatbackthepack said:
He was being crooted by Michigan lol STFUTequilla said:For those that like to say 1 in 3 recruiting is good ... I'd also like to point out that where that came from was that IF there were 3 elite prospects out of SoCal, the idea being that USC would get 1, UCLA would get 1, and UW would get 1 ... and that the reason the UW prospect would be better was because he'd get better coaching and have more of a chip on his shoulder. 1 in 3 never applied to local kids.
As it pertains to OL recruiting and the 1 of 3 ...
Bainivalu SHOULD have been a slam dunk given location and that he was more of a PAC recruit than he was a national recruit.
Fozzy being an in-state kid SHOULD be a minor favorite to UW but going nationally isn't a complete shock historically ... the big miss here (assuming that he goes to Stanford) wasn't that he left but that there was at best a very small window where having any expectation that we could be in the lead was reasonable.
AVT wasn't a SoCal kid ... he was a NoCal kid. Because of that, the USC/UCLA pull SHOULD have been less ... add to it the fact that he goes to a school that not only have we recruited reasonably well as of late (see Camilo Eifler), but the HC of that school is probably on the short list of all-time Husky Legends in Nip ... this is a kid that we should have been able to win over with high end recruiting ... instead he chose USC BEFORE they had even turn things around ... that's a FAIL by us in recruiting.
What I said was that you need a strong and deep class if competing at the national level ... if he is your 3rd or 4th OL that's a GREAT class ... if he is your best probably not deep enough ...
You need more than 1 elite high end guy per class ... I know that's hard for you and a few others around here to understand.
Let's say you just get 1 elite guy every recruiting class, then you're likely always going to be in a position where you're either playing someone too early and/or playing a couple of average guys (hello Shane Brostek) that are going to get their shit pushed in against elite teams.
It's really not that hard to understand ...
The target really needs to be 2-3 elite guys per class ... not every elite player will pan out ... you want them to have time to develop before getting on the field. Considering that we've been under recruiting the last few years, you really need a class or two to make up for it to get the numbers where you need them going forward. -
We're ranked at a national level ... we haven't proven that we're competing at a national level. All that we've proven is that we're an elite team in the PAC ... nothing more or less.Doogles said:
We're competing at a national level right now with Sark retreads and young Pete recruits.Tequilla said:
Go find any place where I said that ...bananasnblondes said:
So we should go ahead and add Bainavalu to your list of husky o line recruits that don't actually count?Tequilla said:
Also pretty sure Michigan was full on the OL and he may not have had a commitable offer ... Dennis or Pepsi can probably speak better to thatbackthepack said:
He was being crooted by Michigan lol STFUTequilla said:For those that like to say 1 in 3 recruiting is good ... I'd also like to point out that where that came from was that IF there were 3 elite prospects out of SoCal, the idea being that USC would get 1, UCLA would get 1, and UW would get 1 ... and that the reason the UW prospect would be better was because he'd get better coaching and have more of a chip on his shoulder. 1 in 3 never applied to local kids.
As it pertains to OL recruiting and the 1 of 3 ...
Bainivalu SHOULD have been a slam dunk given location and that he was more of a PAC recruit than he was a national recruit.
Fozzy being an in-state kid SHOULD be a minor favorite to UW but going nationally isn't a complete shock historically ... the big miss here (assuming that he goes to Stanford) wasn't that he left but that there was at best a very small window where having any expectation that we could be in the lead was reasonable.
AVT wasn't a SoCal kid ... he was a NoCal kid. Because of that, the USC/UCLA pull SHOULD have been less ... add to it the fact that he goes to a school that not only have we recruited reasonably well as of late (see Camilo Eifler), but the HC of that school is probably on the short list of all-time Husky Legends in Nip ... this is a kid that we should have been able to win over with high end recruiting ... instead he chose USC BEFORE they had even turn things around ... that's a FAIL by us in recruiting.
What I said was that you need a strong and deep class if competing at the national level ... if he is your 3rd or 4th OL that's a GREAT class ... if he is your best probably not deep enough ...
Everyone wants Fozzy, but everyone wants wins more. The lag effect is in full swing.
A. Minus SC we've dominated up front and babushka called a game that allowed their pass rush to tee-off.
B.Strausser doesn't get heat until his unit on the field sucks/underperforms, you know, what he's paid for.
The only team that we've played on our schedule with the kind of elite talent on the DL that could give us problems was USC. Sure, you can blame Babushka for a shitty game called on offense and that's fair. That doesn't hide the fact that the OL was in trouble all night.
I've also supported Strausser in the past for his on-field results not only at UW but at Boise ... unlike Pease and the results he had here. But the reality is that OL recruiting is falling behind that of the rest of the team in terms of results.
Is that enough to want to make a change from Strausser? Absolutely not. But at the same time, not acknowledging that the recruiting here needs to get better to match the rest of the roster and that this needs to be emphasized in the 2018 class is also being foolish. -
you are trying to be the general manager of a fantasy team that doesn't exist. just be happy and accept some of the shit that is part of the process.
-
Look, I get it. Stars matter and I'm very well versed on the success correlation of recruiting class rankings and on field success.Tequilla said:
We're ranked at a national level ... we haven't proven that we're competing at a national level. All that we've proven is that we're an elite team in the PAC ... nothing more or less.Doogles said:
We're competing at a national level right now with Sark retreads and young Pete recruits.Tequilla said:
Go find any place where I said that ...bananasnblondes said:
So we should go ahead and add Bainavalu to your list of husky o line recruits that don't actually count?Tequilla said:
Also pretty sure Michigan was full on the OL and he may not have had a commitable offer ... Dennis or Pepsi can probably speak better to thatbackthepack said:
He was being crooted by Michigan lol STFUTequilla said:For those that like to say 1 in 3 recruiting is good ... I'd also like to point out that where that came from was that IF there were 3 elite prospects out of SoCal, the idea being that USC would get 1, UCLA would get 1, and UW would get 1 ... and that the reason the UW prospect would be better was because he'd get better coaching and have more of a chip on his shoulder. 1 in 3 never applied to local kids.
As it pertains to OL recruiting and the 1 of 3 ...
Bainivalu SHOULD have been a slam dunk given location and that he was more of a PAC recruit than he was a national recruit.
Fozzy being an in-state kid SHOULD be a minor favorite to UW but going nationally isn't a complete shock historically ... the big miss here (assuming that he goes to Stanford) wasn't that he left but that there was at best a very small window where having any expectation that we could be in the lead was reasonable.
AVT wasn't a SoCal kid ... he was a NoCal kid. Because of that, the USC/UCLA pull SHOULD have been less ... add to it the fact that he goes to a school that not only have we recruited reasonably well as of late (see Camilo Eifler), but the HC of that school is probably on the short list of all-time Husky Legends in Nip ... this is a kid that we should have been able to win over with high end recruiting ... instead he chose USC BEFORE they had even turn things around ... that's a FAIL by us in recruiting.
What I said was that you need a strong and deep class if competing at the national level ... if he is your 3rd or 4th OL that's a GREAT class ... if he is your best probably not deep enough ...
Everyone wants Fozzy, but everyone wants wins more. The lag effect is in full swing.
A. Minus SC we've dominated up front and babushka called a game that allowed their pass rush to tee-off.
B.Strausser doesn't get heat until his unit on the field sucks/underperforms, you know, what he's paid for.
The only team that we've played on our schedule with the kind of elite talent on the DL that could give us problems was USC. Sure, you can blame Babushka for a shitty game called on offense and that's fair. That doesn't hide the fact that the OL was in trouble all night.
I've also supported Strausser in the past for his on-field results not only at UW but at Boise ... unlike Pease and the results he had here. But the reality is that OL recruiting is falling behind that of the rest of the team in terms of results.
Is that enough to want to make a change from Strausser? Absolutely not. But at the same time, not acknowledging that the recruiting here needs to get better to match the rest of the roster and that this needs to be emphasized in the 2018 class is also being foolish.
The anomaly has been Petersen and the NFL talent he has produced at Boise, all things considered, we're winning.
Stop stirring up drama for your podcast with less than 9 listeners (me included) to prove you're hard.
This is some Petty Kim Shit. -
A lot of people on this thread don't know shit about fozzy or his mom. LOL
If he chooses UW, great, will bolster our line most likely. If not, we better develop other kids. We can't win every recruit we want. -
.... and what's your point? Of course we don't ... we just speculate and talk stupid shit about young men who we hope go UW.2001400ex said:A lot of people on this thread don't know shit about fozzy or his mom. LOL
If he chooses UW, great, will bolster our line most likely. If not, we better develop other kids. We can't win every recruit we want.
Are you missing the whole point about this place?
