ESPN plagarisms Coker's Jesse Callier Initiative

GrundleStiltzkin · February 2017

http://twitter.com/ESPN_Pac12blog/status/827548209400602626

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.

RaceBannon · February 2017

ESPN reads this bored

Sources · February 2017

Gaines once again overlooked

NEsnake12 · February 2017

Sources said:
~~Gaines~~ Kaleb McGary once again overlooked

Meek · February 2017

RaceBannon said:
~~ESPN~~ ~~reads~~ Ted Miller relies on this bored

bananasnblondes · February 2017

So Petersen's first class, which he had 2 months to throw together ended up being the top group in the pac 12.

Mother of God

dhdawg · February 2017

bananasnblondes said:
So Petersen's first class, which he had 2 months to throw together ended up being the top group in the pac 12.

Mother of God

most of those guys were coming to UW either way, sark did the dirty work, Petersen just reaped the benefits.

Budda for example was going to flip no matter what.

Dennis_DeYoung · February 2017

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.

IrishDawg22 · February 2017

ESPN is your source

doogville · February 2017

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?

jecornel · February 2017

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?

Sound reason and balanced comments won't get you far around here! Watch yourself!

Consider yourself warned. Do it again and you are gone. No warning.....just gone.

CokeGreaterThanPepsi · February 2017

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.

bananasnblondes · February 2017

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.

CokeGreaterThanPepsi · February 2017

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.

bananasnblondes · February 2017

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.

Nurple · February 2017

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

Dennis_DeYoung · February 2017

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.

Nurple · February 2017

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

Mad_Son · February 2017

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.

Nurple · February 2017

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

hardhat · February 2017

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?

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

ESPN plagarisms Coker's Jesse Callier Initiative

Comments