TSIO Episode #28: UW 2017 Recruiting Class Review
Comments
-
Hi Dawgman guys!Tequilla said:
Translation of your no point post:RoadDawg55 said:
Fuller should be a significant contributor in his career. We'll see though. The guys this year are coming in with a lot of hype. There are only so many balls to be caught.Gladstone said:I'm glad this was brought up, but the drama and (justified) infatuation around Ty Jones did take a little away from the other WRs. Both of which I am extremely excited about. It's certainly the best WR cohort in my lifetime. Question for you guys: do any of the WR from last year's class, including Fuller, see significant playing time in their careers?
Also you spent way too much time bashing poor Haener lol. Obviously he isn't the best and was a plan Z recruit, but I felt bad for him.
Fuller should be good ...
I don't know though because guys coming in are good ...
Either way, it will be interesting
I rest my case -
Wow, can't believe I listened to this. I guess it speaks to the dearth of Pac-12 content in my world and what content there is, one must be willing to endure white washed, pseudo-swearing. I can't freaking take these A-holes!
As a result of following TSIO on twitter a few months back, I've been turned on to this.
Thank you, I love it.
Whitt is a pretty good recruiter, now I know why.
And going forward, when you guys say "our Pac-12 listeners" ... just say 89ute, call it what it is.
-
Haener can be good. I'm not saying he shouldn't have had any schools offer him.chuck said:Just listened. It wasn't that bad and I don't even hate you as much as usual...even Teq who is less of a dick podding than he is poasting on the boards.
A few bullets:
...I don't think Haener is as worthless as you guys do. I think he has as much ceiling as. Brownsocks. Probably never a starter but I can't completely rule it out.
...I fully agree with most/all of the other assessments. The quality of the OL prospects is high yet overshadowed by the guys UW should've been able to get. I still like Cook the most among the receivers and Tryon among the defensive players. Ahmed and Bryant are freaks that probably see the field right away (maybe Ahmed and cartel RB returning kicks next year? Having two good RBs both with legit sprinter speed back there would be troubling to opponents I think), white TE is undervalued, etc.
...Quit fucking interrupting each other.
Good job fags. Way better content and execution than the shit most of us once paid $100 per year for.
THIS IS THE ISSUE:
I think of the star system (or looking at offers, or anything) as minimizing risk the higher the rank of the prospect.
The DDY scale (which I got from one of DJ's scouts) really is: 3 = minimal risk, very likely to develop into a good player, 2 = higher variance of what they are likely to become, but has a decent chance to be an All Conference player, and 1 = high risk prospect, not likely to become All Conference.
When you have kids who are 5-stars like Fozzy with a ton of offers, he's generally a low-risk, lower variance prospect. He's got less he has to overcome and more traits that are ideal.
This is why people get so confused about stars and all that, like it's supposed to be directly predictive. It's not. It's more like stock picking.
With Haener, I don't think he has really any ideal traits. Obviously I don't know the kid, what's in his head and how hard he's likely to work to develop. There are a lot of ways to be good outside of being Sam Darnold or John Elway (who are essentially the prototypes; ISAFNRC), but if I'm trying to pick sure things - I'm not going with him.
So my feeing is: he has no ideal traits (short, average arm, not particularly fast) and that makes me reticent. It's not that he CANNOT become good, it's just that he's not nearly as likely to be as good as a guy like Eason who has many more ideal (or exceptional) characteristics.
I'm also wary of saying a kid has ideal or exceptional characteristics that cannot be documented or measured in some way. Also because of increased variance. So if a kid supposedly has a great work ethic, that's fine but I want some evidence because everything else can be said about a kid and there's no evidence it exists.
So I know it's a long point, but all of these things are about decreasing risk and increasing likely reward.
Haener isn't the worst QB prospect I've ever seen us sign (::::coughRonnieFouchcough::::), but it is a lot higher risk getting a guy with no ideal physical characteristics that other schools didn't want, and WE didn't want until our top 7 kids turned us down. -
Wow. You've outdone Tequila.Dennis_DeYoung said:
Haener can be good. I'm not saying he shouldn't have had any schools offer him.chuck said:Just listened. It wasn't that bad and I don't even hate you as much as usual...even Teq who is less of a dick podding than he is poasting on the boards.
A few bullets:
...I don't think Haener is as worthless as you guys do. I think he has as much ceiling as. Brownsocks. Probably never a starter but I can't completely rule it out.
...I fully agree with most/all of the other assessments. The quality of the OL prospects is high yet overshadowed by the guys UW should've been able to get. I still like Cook the most among the receivers and Tryon among the defensive players. Ahmed and Bryant are freaks that probably see the field right away (maybe Ahmed and cartel RB returning kicks next year? Having two good RBs both with legit sprinter speed back there would be troubling to opponents I think), white TE is undervalued, etc.
...Quit fucking interrupting each other.
Good job fags. Way better content and execution than the shit most of us once paid $100 per year for.
THIS IS THE ISSUE:
I think of the star system (or looking at offers, or anything) as minimizing risk the higher the rank of the prospect.
The DDY scale (which I got from one of DJ's scouts) really is: 3 = minimal risk, very likely to develop into a good player, 2 = higher variance of what they are likely to become, but has a decent chance to be an All Conference player, and 1 = high risk prospect, not likely to become All Conference.
When you have kids who are 5-stars like Fozzy with a ton of offers, he's generally a low-risk, lower variance prospect. He's got less he has to overcome and more traits that are ideal.
This is why people get so confused about stars and all that, like it's supposed to be directly predictive. It's not. It's more like stock picking.
With Haener, I don't think he has really any ideal traits. Obviously I don't know the kid, what's in his head and how hard he's likely to work to develop. There are a lot of ways to be good outside of being Sam Darnold or John Elway (who are essentially the prototypes; ISAFNRC), but if I'm trying to pick sure things - I'm not going with him.
So my feeing is: he has no ideal traits (short, average arm, not particularly fast) and that makes me reticent. It's not that he CANNOT become good, it's just that he's not nearly as likely to be as good as a guy like Eason who has many more ideal (or exceptional) characteristics.
I'm also wary of saying a kid has ideal or exceptional characteristics that cannot be documented or measured in some way. Also because of increased variance. So if a kid supposedly has a great work ethic, that's fine but I want some evidence because everything else can be said about a kid and there's no evidence it exists.
So I know it's a long point, but all of these things are about decreasing risk and increasing likely reward.
Haener isn't the worst QB prospect I've ever seen us sign (::::coughRonnieFouchcough::::), but it is a lot higher risk getting a guy with no ideal physical characteristics that other schools didn't want, and WE didn't want until our top 7 kids turned us down.
Quite an achievement considering your condition.
-
I was even bored reading that long windedness ...TurdBuffer said:
Wow. You've outdone Tequila.Dennis_DeYoung said:
Haener can be good. I'm not saying he shouldn't have had any schools offer him.chuck said:Just listened. It wasn't that bad and I don't even hate you as much as usual...even Teq who is less of a dick podding than he is poasting on the boards.
A few bullets:
...I don't think Haener is as worthless as you guys do. I think he has as much ceiling as. Brownsocks. Probably never a starter but I can't completely rule it out.
...I fully agree with most/all of the other assessments. The quality of the OL prospects is high yet overshadowed by the guys UW should've been able to get. I still like Cook the most among the receivers and Tryon among the defensive players. Ahmed and Bryant are freaks that probably see the field right away (maybe Ahmed and cartel RB returning kicks next year? Having two good RBs both with legit sprinter speed back there would be troubling to opponents I think), white TE is undervalued, etc.
...Quit fucking interrupting each other.
Good job fags. Way better content and execution than the shit most of us once paid $100 per year for.
THIS IS THE ISSUE:
I think of the star system (or looking at offers, or anything) as minimizing risk the higher the rank of the prospect.
The DDY scale (which I got from one of DJ's scouts) really is: 3 = minimal risk, very likely to develop into a good player, 2 = higher variance of what they are likely to become, but has a decent chance to be an All Conference player, and 1 = high risk prospect, not likely to become All Conference.
When you have kids who are 5-stars like Fozzy with a ton of offers, he's generally a low-risk, lower variance prospect. He's got less he has to overcome and more traits that are ideal.
This is why people get so confused about stars and all that, like it's supposed to be directly predictive. It's not. It's more like stock picking.
With Haener, I don't think he has really any ideal traits. Obviously I don't know the kid, what's in his head and how hard he's likely to work to develop. There are a lot of ways to be good outside of being Sam Darnold or John Elway (who are essentially the prototypes; ISAFNRC), but if I'm trying to pick sure things - I'm not going with him.
So my feeing is: he has no ideal traits (short, average arm, not particularly fast) and that makes me reticent. It's not that he CANNOT become good, it's just that he's not nearly as likely to be as good as a guy like Eason who has many more ideal (or exceptional) characteristics.
I'm also wary of saying a kid has ideal or exceptional characteristics that cannot be documented or measured in some way. Also because of increased variance. So if a kid supposedly has a great work ethic, that's fine but I want some evidence because everything else can be said about a kid and there's no evidence it exists.
So I know it's a long point, but all of these things are about decreasing risk and increasing likely reward.
Haener isn't the worst QB prospect I've ever seen us sign (::::coughRonnieFouchcough::::), but it is a lot higher risk getting a guy with no ideal physical characteristics that other schools didn't want, and WE didn't want until our top 7 kids turned us down.
Quite an achievement considering your condition.
With Haener it is simple to me ... how many QBs his size have you seen turn out to be high end college QBs?
The biggest thing that I look for in a recruit's film is 1 or 2 things that just pop out to me as after all these are supposed to be their best plays. The two things that I took from Haener was that 1) he looked VERY SMALL behind what looked like VERY SMALL OL and DL's ... that's not a good thing and 2) that a lot of his best plays were of a scrambling nature ... which only works if you have elite athletic ability to do that like Russell Wilson.
And as was said on the pod, the fact that Oregon State, a program with absolute dreck for QBs didn't offer really makes me wonder. -
Good summary @DDY. I didn't quote the whole thing because I'm not a prick like that and I know that basement dwelling sweatpants boner sporting TBSers wear out from all the scrolling requires to follow threads.
-
loved the shoutout that @ThomasFremont and i got. not sure who the reverse ser meryn trant would be. some GILF i presume
-
When I listened back to it I realized I fucked it up. FML!Gladstone said:loved the shoutout that @ThomasFremont and i got. not sure who the reverse ser meryn trant would be. some GILF i presume
-
It's really not hard. Fuller will produce if called upon. He looked like he can play. The three incoming guys could be better. I don't know as I haven't seen them. What's the problem with that?Tequilla said:
Translation of your no point post:RoadDawg55 said:
Fuller should be a significant contributor in his career. We'll see though. The guys this year are coming in with a lot of hype. There are only so many balls to be caught.Gladstone said:I'm glad this was brought up, but the drama and (justified) infatuation around Ty Jones did take a little away from the other WRs. Both of which I am extremely excited about. It's certainly the best WR cohort in my lifetime. Question for you guys: do any of the WR from last year's class, including Fuller, see significant playing time in their careers?
Also you spent way too much time bashing poor Haener lol. Obviously he isn't the best and was a plan Z recruit, but I felt bad for him.
Fuller should be good ...
I don't know though because guys coming in are good ...
Either way, it will be interesting
I rest my case
