Fozzy to Stanford
Comments
-
I enjoy discussing UW football and football in general.RaceBannon said:
Remind me why the fuck you are here againjecornel said:The line of thought of, "can't blame a kid for going to Stanford," is absurd.
There are a myriad of ways to be successful in life. Success doesn't route strictly through.
Tiger Woods went to Stanford. He is without question a net negative to society. Total scum.
What did he gain from going Stanford? -
3 OL or even 2 OL in this class is perfectly fine just as long as 2018 includes at least 5 OL 2 of which are JUCOs
-
Petersen's elite is not the same as the Rivals100 though.Tequilla said:
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. -
-
I hate this thread
-
I don't want to get embroiled in a tequila-roaddawg donnybrook. (I do that enough on my own). Just 2 quick opinions:
- Strausser is a good O-line coach. He may not be the best recruiter, but any OL that wants to improve and have a shot at the NFL is a fucking moron for not coming to UW. This is where a recruit's father needs to step in and say: "Son, maybe Coach Strausser isn't as 'cool' as some other coach you're listening to, but he and Coach Pete will make you a much better player and person."
- usc's front four unfortunately showed that our O-line is good, but still struggles against elite talent that is playing well. If tequila is saying that our O-line would struggle against bama and 1 or 2 other truly elite teams and that is why we need recruits like Sarrell, then he is probably right. However, if Mathis were healthy, I can't think of a single O-line across the country that wouldn't struggle against our D-line (including bama). That is football. Truly elite D-lines will force any opposing offense to struggle and score points.
That is why I am an annoying broken record on the importance of a great D-line. It wins championships. -
The bolded is pure fiction. As in, unadulterated bullshit.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.
Excluding the transition class, the OL recruits are basically of the same quality (judged by average star ranking) as the rest of the recruiting classes.
-
Pumpy?Tequilla said:
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 -
Making the case that our O-line recruits dont match our other positions in terms of quality and quantity is solely a matter of availability. There are 5 times as many quality db's, rb's, wr's to be recruited. High quality beef is rare. Therefore development trumps recruiting in the long haul. The big boy programs who have been relevent the last 5 years are going to get the best of the best and they make them a priority. If 2017 is similar to 2016 we will start seeing the elite beef wanting a piece of UW. But up to that point Strausser is the best O-line coach we could have had to get us over the hump.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. -
Coaches recruit by region not position.Passion said:- Strausser is a good O-line coach. He may not be the best recruiter
-
Maybe they want to play for Lake but their primary recruiter could be Strausser if they are in his regionPassion said: -
When has Washington ever gotten more than 1 elite high end OL per class? Yeah there was one year where they got Coats/Olson/Kreutz, but that seems like a major outlier and Kreutz wasn't even considered elite coming in. Otherwise Washington has historically had great OLs (James era) without a ton of elite recruits.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.
If Strausser gets one elite guy every year he's going to produce very good OLs.
And of course, he's already got one and there's 2 months still signing day. -
UW's track record with JC's isn't good - not a valid optionKobeStan said:3 OL or even 2 OL in this class is perfectly fine just as long as 2018 includes at least 5 OL 2 of which are JUCOs
-
I agree with this ... which is why I focus on the guys that they are initially pursuing as those are the guys they wantKobeStan said:
Petersen's elite is not the same as the Rivals100 though.Tequilla said:
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 agree on something here, I don't see UW taking any JUCO's.Tequilla said:
UW's track record with JC's isn't good - not a valid optionKobeStan said:3 OL or even 2 OL in this class is perfectly fine just as long as 2018 includes at least 5 OL 2 of which are JUCOs
Though if Pete did sign a JC I'd have a lot more faith in his ability to get him into school than what we've seen in the past.
#AttentionToDetail -
You have to tenderize the horse before you eat it ... I know a great little joint in Switzerland that serves some dynamite horseMrsPetersen said:
-
@dnc
When it comes to pulling elite recruits out of California, it's probably true that you are looking at 1 in 3 being likely ... 1 in 2 at best
That's why it is so important to clean up with the fence around the State and keep the elite players home ... if we're rolling in-state we basically get anybody that we want
If you look at this year's class, that's basically true with the possible exception of Fozzy ... who is probably the most important of the recruits -
@Passion
You are absolutely right in what I'm saying ...
We have a good enough OL to compete for PAC titles ...
We still need more talent on the OL to compete nationally ...
I do agree with you that an elite DL can still cause problems for the most elite of OLs ... but the difference from a very good to elite OL in a game like that is probably the difference in winning or losing -
1 out of 3 in California is way too optimistic IMO. You're never going to consistently outrecruit USC and it's super optimistic to think you're going to match UCLA in California. So you're basically competing with the rest of the country for the kids that SC or UCLA didn't offer or the occasional kid who wants to leave the state.Tequilla said:@dnc
When it comes to pulling elite recruits out of California, it's probably true that you are looking at 1 in 3 being likely ... 1 in 2 at best
That's why it is so important to clean up with the fence around the State and keep the elite players home ... if we're rolling in-state we basically get anybody that we want
If you look at this year's class, that's basically true with the possible exception of Fozzy ... who is probably the most important of the recruits
1 out of 5 seems more likely and even that is optimistic IMO.
I completely agree that losing Sarrell is a big problem. We have to keep the elite kids home. If this were Ty or Sark losing him I'd be going ballistic. With Pete, I think he recognizes the importances of the local kids and is building a program that will keep those kids home in the future.
Going forward I expect to get all the in state OL of significance and supplement with mostly good but not great Cali kids and hopefully some Hawaii/Utah poly kids.
I'm really not worried about OL recruiting beyond this year, I think it will be very good, and the development will be great. I'm at the point I'd be pretty bummed if we lost Strausser. -
Hopefully strausser leaves so we can get klem? Imagine all the recruits that would be lining up.dnc said:
1 out of 3 in California is way too optimistic IMO. You're never going to consistently outrecruit USC and it's super optimistic to think you're going to match UCLA in California. So you're basically competing with the rest of the country for the kids that SC or UCLA didn't offer or the occasional kid who wants to leave the state.Tequilla said:@dnc
When it comes to pulling elite recruits out of California, it's probably true that you are looking at 1 in 3 being likely ... 1 in 2 at best
That's why it is so important to clean up with the fence around the State and keep the elite players home ... if we're rolling in-state we basically get anybody that we want
If you look at this year's class, that's basically true with the possible exception of Fozzy ... who is probably the most important of the recruits
1 out of 5 seems more likely and even that is optimistic IMO.
I completely agree that losing Sarrell is a big problem. We have to keep the elite kids home. If this were Ty or Sark losing him I'd be going ballistic. With Pete, I think he recognizes the importances of the local kids and is building a program that will keep those kids home in the future.
Going forward I expect to get all the in state OL of significance and supplement with mostly good but not great Cali kids and hopefully some Hawaii/Utah poly kids.
I'm really not worried about OL recruiting beyond this year, I think it will be very good, and the development will be great. I'm at the point I'd be pretty bummed if we lost Strausser. -
If you are building a truly elite offensive line, here is what you need (in order of importance)
1. Coaching/Player Development - Strausser seems to be excellent at this including going back to his days at Boise
2. Experience/Depth - we don't have this. We have 2 sophomore tackles, a true freshman who got a ton of time at guard, and only 1 senior on offensive line. As backups, we have a whole bunch of RS freshmen and sophomores. If you want proof of the importance of this, go back and look at Jake Eldrenkamp (or any all-conference lineman) 2 years ago.
3. Recruiting stars - for almost all offensive line coaches, this part comes after they have established their program as having a strong offensive line. With UW finally having a good line, and 3 all-conference guys, I expect that the 2018 class will have a bunch of elite linemen looking at, and committing to, UW. Elite kids don't automatically migrate to a school that was 7-6 and hasn't had an all-conference lineman in 15 years. There are very few OL coaches that have a reputation as "recruiters". Klemm is the only one I can think of and he's quite possibly one of the worst "coaches" in the conference.
Tl;dr - our o line coaching is great, our depth and experience is getting better, the recruits will come. -
Signing Pola-Mao would be a great leap forward.NEsnake12 said:
-
It is true that coaches tend to recruit areas and do most of the legwork on the recruit.NEsnake12 said:
However, ultimately the position coach and their relationship with the player that will be in their position group goes a long way in whether you get that recruit to commit or not. -
@Tequilla
I pointed out that the recruiting rankings on the OLs UW has recruited since the transition class are in line with the rest of players Petersen and his staff have recruited. I have done it before in response to your diatribes. You never respond. Why is that? -
Great post.bananasnblondes said:If you are building a truly elite offensive line, here is what you need (in order of importance)
1. Coaching/Player Development - Strausser seems to be excellent at this including going back to his days at Boise
2. Experience/Depth - we don't have this. We have 2 sophomore tackles, a true freshman who got a ton of time at guard, and only 1 senior on offensive line. As backups, we have a whole bunch of RS freshmen and sophomores. If you want proof of the importance of this, go back and look at Jake Eldrenkamp (or any all-conference lineman) 2 years ago.
3. Recruiting stars - for almost all offensive line coaches, this part comes after they have established their program as having a strong offensive line. With UW finally having a good line, and 3 all-conference guys, I expect that the 2018 class will have a bunch of elite linemen looking at, and committing to, UW. Elite kids don't automatically migrate to a school that was 7-6 and hasn't had an all-conference lineman in 15 years. There are very few OL coaches that have a reputation as "recruiters". Klemm is the only one I can think of and he's quite possibly one of the worst "coaches" in the conference.
Tl;dr - our o line coaching is great, our depth and experience is getting better, the recruits will come. -
This has been hashed out before:AIRWOLF said:@Tequilla
I pointed out that the recruiting rankings on the OLs UW has recruited since the transition class are in line with the rest of players Petersen and his staff have recruited. I have done it before in response to your diatribes. You never respond. Why is that?
-Adams, Roberts (and now Bainavalu) don't count because they are from the area
-McGary doesn't count because he was originally a D-Linemen (even though it was well known he would end up on offense)
-Wattenberg didn't count because his final 2 came down to UW and Duke
-Harris doesn't count because no one thought he would be good.
The only guys who count are the 4 guys they signed in January of the transition year after they were hired. -
You forgot that Foster Sarrells plan B recruit won't count either.bananasnblondes said:
This has been hashed out before:AIRWOLF said:@Tequilla
I pointed out that the recruiting rankings on the OLs UW has recruited since the transition class are in line with the rest of players Petersen and his staff have recruited. I have done it before in response to your diatribes. You never respond. Why is that?
-Adams, Roberts (and now Bainavalu) don't count because they are from the area
-McGary doesn't count because he was originally a D-Linemen (even though it was well known he would end up on offense)
-Wattenberg didn't count because his final 2 came down to UW and Duke
-Harris doesn't count because no one thought he would be good.
The only guys who count are the 4 guys they signed in January of the transition year after they were hired. -
We need more talent everywhere to compete with Alabama. So does everyone else. We will very likely never be Alabama. Water is wet.Tequilla said:@Passion
You are absolutely right in what I'm saying ...
We have a good enough OL to compete for PAC titles ...
We still need more talent on the OL to compete nationally ...
I do agree with you that an elite DL can still cause problems for the most elite of OLs ... but the difference from a very good to elite OL in a game like that is probably the difference in winning or losing
At least we will likely get a chance to see where we measure up. You are basically saying not winning a title means we aren't elite which is odd considering you aren't exactly known for high standards.
After Alabama, there is a very reasonable case that UW is the next best team.
Ohio State struggled all game with Michigan's DL. They are elite. Our OL is good. Deal with it. 4 starters back next year with a lot of competition with the young guys and Kirkland for the final guard spot.
If we get Fozzy there will be no argument at all. If we don't, recruit some other guys and coach them the fuck up. That's what we have seen so far. No reason to believe it won't continue.
