Home› The Fisching Hole (Recruiting)

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register
Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

ESPN plagarisms Coker's Jesse Callier Initiative

GrundleStiltzkinGrundleStiltzkin Member Posts: 61,507 Standard Supporter
in The Fisching Hole (Recruiting)
1. Washington

Here is a list of some major contributors to the Huskies’ College Football Playoff team: S Budda Baker, DL Vita Vea, WR Dante Pettis, CB Sidney Jones, S JoJo McIntosh, DL Greg Gaines. They were part of the same class and back then only Baker was considered a top-300 player. Safe to say this group turned out to be much, much better than No. 7 in the Pac-12 and No. 45 nationally. Baker and Jones declared for the NFL draft, while Vea and Pettis also had reason to consider an early jump.
Tagged:
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
«13

Comments

  • SourcesSources Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 4,011 Founders Club
    Gaines once again overlooked
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Dennis_DeYoungDennis_DeYoung Member Posts: 14,754
    It makes no sense to "re rank" recruiting classes. They are ranked at the time because they generally reflect how badly the players were wanted during that recruiting cycle.

    Sure, some kids are underrated, etc, but in general star averages are good approximations of how well you did vs your competitors.

    Everything else is coaching.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • IrishDawg22IrishDawg22 Member Posts: 2,754
    ESPN is your source
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CokeGreaterThanPepsiCokeGreaterThanPepsi Member Posts: 7,646
    doogville said:

    Dennis_DeYoung said:

    It makes no sense to "re rank" recruiting classes. They are ranked at the time because they generally reflect how badly the players were wanted during that recruiting cycle.

    Sure, some kids are underrated, etc, but in general star averages are good approximations of how well you did vs your competitors.

    Everything else is coaching.

    I'm surprised to see DDY make such a silly argument. I guess he's indeed drinking again.

    It makes no sense to NOT rerank classes based on performance, that's how you know if your evaluation processes are working or not.

    Pete's are.

    The problem with relying on stars because they reflect interest is that there are differences in how coaches evaluate. Pete watched the same film as USC on pili, you don't think it makes sense to check in in a few years to see who was right?
    Re-Ranking recruiting classes down the line is a reflection of the coaches ability to coach. I love it for that, that's what the whole Jesse Callier thing is all about.

    Brandon Pili sucks right now, if he gets good at USC it tells me they coached him up really well.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • bananasnblondesbananasnblondes Member Posts: 15,365
    CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:

    doogville said:

    Dennis_DeYoung said:

    It makes no sense to "re rank" recruiting classes. They are ranked at the time because they generally reflect how badly the players were wanted during that recruiting cycle.

    Sure, some kids are underrated, etc, but in general star averages are good approximations of how well you did vs your competitors.

    Everything else is coaching.

    I'm surprised to see DDY make such a silly argument. I guess he's indeed drinking again.

    It makes no sense to NOT rerank classes based on performance, that's how you know if your evaluation processes are working or not.

    Pete's are.

    The problem with relying on stars because they reflect interest is that there are differences in how coaches evaluate. Pete watched the same film as USC on pili, you don't think it makes sense to check in in a few years to see who was right?
    Re-Ranking recruiting classes down the line is a reflection of the coaches ability to coach. I love it for that, that's what the whole Jesse Callier thing is all about.

    Brandon Pili sucks right now, if he gets good at USC it tells me they coached him up really well.
    It's not just the coaches ability to coach. It's also their ability, as recruiters, to identify talent and identify players who will work thrive in their system.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • bananasnblondesbananasnblondes Member Posts: 15,365
    CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:

    bananasnblondes said:

    CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:

    doogville said:

    Dennis_DeYoung said:

    It makes no sense to "re rank" recruiting classes. They are ranked at the time because they generally reflect how badly the players were wanted during that recruiting cycle.

    Sure, some kids are underrated, etc, but in general star averages are good approximations of how well you did vs your competitors.

    Everything else is coaching.

    I'm surprised to see DDY make such a silly argument. I guess he's indeed drinking again.

    It makes no sense to NOT rerank classes based on performance, that's how you know if your evaluation processes are working or not.

    Pete's are.

    The problem with relying on stars because they reflect interest is that there are differences in how coaches evaluate. Pete watched the same film as USC on pili, you don't think it makes sense to check in in a few years to see who was right?
    Re-Ranking recruiting classes down the line is a reflection of the coaches ability to coach. I love it for that, that's what the whole Jesse Callier thing is all about.

    Brandon Pili sucks right now, if he gets good at USC it tells me they coached him up really well.
    It's not just the coaches ability to coach. It's also their ability, as recruiters, to identify talent and identify players who will work thrive in their system.

    Yup, and I trust them so much at their ability to evaluate talent that that is one of the reasons I hate to see us miss guys that they offered before the guys we offered late.

    I love all the guys we got late, they are all really talented kids and with the way we coach they should develop great. But I can still wish we could've seen them coach up the elite guys that we missed on, that's all.
    You and I are in agreement on this point. However, no school is going to get every top kid. I do think part of "recruiting" is being able to find guys that might be a little under the radar, but you recognize their potential in your system

    Sidney Jones is a great example. We didn't have to fight off USC or Bama for him. We were his best offer. A couple years of coaching was not the difference between him being a bust and a first round NFL prospect. He had that potential from the get-go. Lake gets "recruiting kudos" for recognizing that.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • NurpleNurple Member Posts: 686
    bananasnblondes said:

    CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:

    bananasnblondes said:

    CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:

    doogville said:

    Dennis_DeYoung said:

    It makes no sense to "re rank" recruiting classes. They are ranked at the time because they generally reflect how badly the players were wanted during that recruiting cycle.

    Sure, some kids are underrated, etc, but in general star averages are good approximations of how well you did vs your competitors.

    Everything else is coaching.

    I'm surprised to see DDY make such a silly argument. I guess he's indeed drinking again.

    It makes no sense to NOT rerank classes based on performance, that's how you know if your evaluation processes are working or not.

    Pete's are.

    The problem with relying on stars because they reflect interest is that there are differences in how coaches evaluate. Pete watched the same film as USC on pili, you don't think it makes sense to check in in a few years to see who was right?
    Re-Ranking recruiting classes down the line is a reflection of the coaches ability to coach. I love it for that, that's what the whole Jesse Callier thing is all about.

    Brandon Pili sucks right now, if he gets good at USC it tells me they coached him up really well.
    It's not just the coaches ability to coach. It's also their ability, as recruiters, to identify talent and identify players who will work thrive in their system.

    Yup, and I trust them so much at their ability to evaluate talent that that is one of the reasons I hate to see us miss guys that they offered before the guys we offered late.

    I love all the guys we got late, they are all really talented kids and with the way we coach they should develop great. But I can still wish we could've seen them coach up the elite guys that we missed on, that's all.
    You and I are in agreement on this point. However, no school is going to get every top kid. I do think part of "recruiting" is being able to find guys that might be a little under the radar, but you recognize their potential in your system

    Sidney Jones is a great example. We didn't have to fight off USC or Bama for him. We were his best offer. A couple years of coaching was not the difference between him being a bust and a first round NFL prospect. He had that potential from the get-go. Lake gets "recruiting kudos" for recognizing that.
    This staff best at evaluating talent I wonder if they may hold out on those under recruited guys they identify early on to keep those salesmen (Nansen) off their nuts
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Dennis_DeYoungDennis_DeYoung Member Posts: 14,754
    Nurple said:

    bananasnblondes said:

    CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:

    bananasnblondes said:

    CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:

    doogville said:

    Dennis_DeYoung said:

    It makes no sense to "re rank" recruiting classes. They are ranked at the time because they generally reflect how badly the players were wanted during that recruiting cycle.

    Sure, some kids are underrated, etc, but in general star averages are good approximations of how well you did vs your competitors.

    Everything else is coaching.

    I'm surprised to see DDY make such a silly argument. I guess he's indeed drinking again.

    It makes no sense to NOT rerank classes based on performance, that's how you know if your evaluation processes are working or not.

    Pete's are.

    The problem with relying on stars because they reflect interest is that there are differences in how coaches evaluate. Pete watched the same film as USC on pili, you don't think it makes sense to check in in a few years to see who was right?
    Re-Ranking recruiting classes down the line is a reflection of the coaches ability to coach. I love it for that, that's what the whole Jesse Callier thing is all about.

    Brandon Pili sucks right now, if he gets good at USC it tells me they coached him up really well.
    It's not just the coaches ability to coach. It's also their ability, as recruiters, to identify talent and identify players who will work thrive in their system.

    Yup, and I trust them so much at their ability to evaluate talent that that is one of the reasons I hate to see us miss guys that they offered before the guys we offered late.

    I love all the guys we got late, they are all really talented kids and with the way we coach they should develop great. But I can still wish we could've seen them coach up the elite guys that we missed on, that's all.
    You and I are in agreement on this point. However, no school is going to get every top kid. I do think part of "recruiting" is being able to find guys that might be a little under the radar, but you recognize their potential in your system

    Sidney Jones is a great example. We didn't have to fight off USC or Bama for him. We were his best offer. A couple years of coaching was not the difference between him being a bust and a first round NFL prospect. He had that potential from the get-go. Lake gets "recruiting kudos" for recognizing that.
    This staff best at evaluating talent I wonder if they may hold out on those under recruited guys they identify early on to keep those salesmen (Nansen) off their nuts
    Not really.

    I mean, if a kid has ZERO P12 offers they might hold off until signing day.

    But Haener has zero P12 offers and we could've had him at any time and we offered him early.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • NurpleNurple Member Posts: 686
    Dennis_DeYoung said:

    Nurple said:

    bananasnblondes said:

    CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:

    bananasnblondes said:

    CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:

    doogville said:

    Dennis_DeYoung said:

    It makes no sense to "re rank" recruiting classes. They are ranked at the time because they generally reflect how badly the players were wanted during that recruiting cycle.

    Sure, some kids are underrated, etc, but in general star averages are good approximations of how well you did vs your competitors.

    Everything else is coaching.

    I'm surprised to see DDY make such a silly argument. I guess he's indeed drinking again.

    It makes no sense to NOT rerank classes based on performance, that's how you know if your evaluation processes are working or not.

    Pete's are.

    The problem with relying on stars because they reflect interest is that there are differences in how coaches evaluate. Pete watched the same film as USC on pili, you don't think it makes sense to check in in a few years to see who was right?
    Re-Ranking recruiting classes down the line is a reflection of the coaches ability to coach. I love it for that, that's what the whole Jesse Callier thing is all about.

    Brandon Pili sucks right now, if he gets good at USC it tells me they coached him up really well.
    It's not just the coaches ability to coach. It's also their ability, as recruiters, to identify talent and identify players who will work thrive in their system.

    Yup, and I trust them so much at their ability to evaluate talent that that is one of the reasons I hate to see us miss guys that they offered before the guys we offered late.

    I love all the guys we got late, they are all really talented kids and with the way we coach they should develop great. But I can still wish we could've seen them coach up the elite guys that we missed on, that's all.
    You and I are in agreement on this point. However, no school is going to get every top kid. I do think part of "recruiting" is being able to find guys that might be a little under the radar, but you recognize their potential in your system

    Sidney Jones is a great example. We didn't have to fight off USC or Bama for him. We were his best offer. A couple years of coaching was not the difference between him being a bust and a first round NFL prospect. He had that potential from the get-go. Lake gets "recruiting kudos" for recognizing that.
    This staff best at evaluating talent I wonder if they may hold out on those under recruited guys they identify early on to keep those salesmen (Nansen) off their nuts
    Not really.

    I mean, if a kid has ZERO P12 offers they might hold off until signing day.

    But Haener has zero P12 offers and we could've had him at any time and we offered him early.
    This staff knows their hoes essentially
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Mad_SonMad_Son Member Posts: 10,184
    Dennis_DeYoung said:

    It makes no sense to "re rank" recruiting classes. They are ranked at the time because they generally reflect how badly the players were wanted during that recruiting cycle.

    Sure, some kids are underrated, etc, but in general star averages are good approximations of how well you did vs your competitors.

    Everything else is coaching.

    I hope most of us can agree that star rankings are useful on a population level as a broad measure of talent. The reranking bit encompasses true talent + coaching + system fit. Obviously these are not the same thing but reranking can show where significant deviations lie in either a staff's ability to assess talent, develop players, how to maximize their system, or some combination of these. I think improving in a reranking is a positive, meaningful thing - it just doesn't really reassess who the "actual" best players were X years ago.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • NurpleNurple Member Posts: 686
    Pete says fuck stars give me a kid with want to and heart these are our guys going forward whether we like it or not
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • hardhathardhat Member Posts: 8,344
    Nurple said:

    Pete says fuck stars give me a kid with want to and heart these are our guys going forward whether we like it or not

    Lars is that you?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.