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.
He was being crooted by Michigan lol STFU
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 that
So we should go ahead and add Bainavalu to your list of husky o line recruits that don't actually count?
Go find any place where I said that ...
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 ...
According to 24/7 Bainivulu is the highest rated OL Petersen has ever gotten. Higher than Adams, McGary, Roberts, and Wattenberg.
And how many OL do you start?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Petersen's elite is not the same as the Rivals100 though.
I agree with this ... which is why I focus on the guys that they are initially pursuing as those are the guys they want
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
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
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
- Strausser is a good O-line coach. He may not be the best recruiter
Coaches recruit by region not position.
Sorry, but DBs from all over the place want to play for Jimmy Lake, and he recruits them.
Maybe they want to play for Lake but their primary recruiter could be Strausser if they are in his region
This is correct to a degree. For instance I know that Paopao is the main AZ guy and the one recruiting the Pola-Mao brothers.
It is true that coaches tend to recruit areas and do most of the legwork on the recruit.
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.
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?
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.
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?
This has been hashed out before:
-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.
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?
This has been hashed out before:
-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.
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
We need more talent everywhere to compete with Alabama. So does everyone else. We will very likely never be Alabama. Water is wet.
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.
Comments
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.
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
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.