Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
ESPN plagarisms Coker's Jesse Callier Initiative
GrundleStiltzkin
Member Posts: 61,516 
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.
Comments
-
ESPN reads this bored
-
Gaines once again overlooked
-
Sources said:
GainesKaleb McGary once again overlooked -
RaceBannon said:
ESPNreadsTed Miller relies on this bored -
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.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
Budda for example was going to flip no matter what.
-
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. -
ESPN is your source
-
I'm surprised to see DDY make such a silly argument. I guess he's indeed drinking again.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.
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!doogville said:
I'm surprised to see DDY make such a silly argument. I guess he's indeed drinking again.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.
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?
Consider yourself warned. Do it again and you are gone. No warning.....just gone. -
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.doogville said:
I'm surprised to see DDY make such a silly argument. I guess he's indeed drinking again.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.
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?
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 said:
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.doogville said:
I'm surprised to see DDY make such a silly argument. I guess he's indeed drinking again.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.
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?
Brandon Pili sucks right now, if he gets good at USC it tells me they coached him up really well.
-
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.bananasnblondes said:
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 said:
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.doogville said:
I'm surprised to see DDY make such a silly argument. I guess he's indeed drinking again.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.
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?
Brandon Pili sucks right now, if he gets good at USC it tells me they coached him up really well.
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 systemCokeGreaterThanPepsi said:
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.bananasnblondes said:
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 said:
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.doogville said:
I'm surprised to see DDY make such a silly argument. I guess he's indeed drinking again.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.
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?
Brandon Pili sucks right now, if he gets good at USC it tells me they coached him up really well.
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.
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 nutsbananasnblondes said:
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 systemCokeGreaterThanPepsi said:
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.bananasnblondes said:
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 said:
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.doogville said:
I'm surprised to see DDY make such a silly argument. I guess he's indeed drinking again.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.
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?
Brandon Pili sucks right now, if he gets good at USC it tells me they coached him up really well.
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.
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. -
Not really.Nurple said:
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 nutsbananasnblondes said:
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 systemCokeGreaterThanPepsi said:
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.bananasnblondes said:
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 said:
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.doogville said:
I'm surprised to see DDY make such a silly argument. I guess he's indeed drinking again.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.
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?
Brandon Pili sucks right now, if he gets good at USC it tells me they coached him up really well.
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.
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.
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 essentiallyDennis_DeYoung said:
Not really.Nurple said:
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 nutsbananasnblondes said:
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 systemCokeGreaterThanPepsi said:
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.bananasnblondes said:
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 said:
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.doogville said:
I'm surprised to see DDY make such a silly argument. I guess he's indeed drinking again.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.
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?
Brandon Pili sucks right now, if he gets good at USC it tells me they coached him up really well.
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.
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.
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. -
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.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. -
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?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
-
So it makes sense to rerank individuals but not classes?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.
Hmmmm. -
Huh?dnc said:
So it makes sense to rerank individuals but not classes?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.
Hmmmm.
The Jesse Callier ratings are about assessing how much your program improved a kid. It's not really that complicated to follow...
Kids have some level of ability coming out of high school. Then they go to college and they either blossom a lot or regress, or stay about the same.
When you start seeing positive changes in Jesse Callier rankings (meaning they came in as a 3 and left as a 5 like Sid Jones) that implies two things that are impossible to fully disentangle: 1 - we got the kid to improve considerably and 2 - he was maybe better than his rating and we did a good job evaluating the kid.
Re-ranking classes makes no sense because you cannot disentangle those two factors by looking at performance on the field over 4 years.
The best information about a kid's abilities coming out of HS is how many experts (all the college coaches in the nation) feel he's worthy of a scholarship. So, re-ranking something that is effectively supposed to determine how good he was coming out of HS is dumb 4-years later.
Sure, sometimes coaches will miss and sometimes coaches will over-like a particular kid.
But the offers are still the BEST information about how good a kid is coming out of HS.
So - re-ranking classes is tantamount to saying coaching is not an important variable in development and that whatever a kid's 'talent-level' is was fixed during his senior year of HS. And saying that is FS. -
Pete says fuck stars? Are you fucking stupid?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
Here's who we've offered so far for 2018
QB - A bunch of 4 and 5 stars.
RB - A bunch of 4 and 5 stars.
WR - A bunch of 4 and 5 stars.
TE - A bunch of 4 and 5 stars.
OL - A bunch of 4 and 5 stars.
DL - A bunch of 4 and 5 stars.
BUCK - A bunch of 4 and 5 stars.
LB - A bunch of 4 and 5 stars.
DB - A bunch of 4 and 5 stars.
Once they start turning us down, we will go down the list to guys who are not wanted by as many big time programs and are easier to get. Fortunately Pete and staff have a good history of picking winners from those kids.
However, we offer 90% of the same kids that USC, UCLA, Stanford, Michigan, etc. does. If they all said yes, we'd have a class of top 100 players.
But because that doesn't happen, we don't get only 4 and 5 stars.
I can't think of a single kid in this last class who we offered in the first wave of offers who wasn't a 4 or 5 star kid. Not one. -
Only ones possible I can think of are Rapp and Ty Jones, not sure if they were first wave or not?Dennis_DeYoung said:
Pete says fuck stars? Are you fucking stupid?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
Here's who we've offered so far for 2018
QB - A bunch of 4 and 5 stars.
RB - A bunch of 4 and 5 stars.
WR - A bunch of 4 and 5 stars.
TE - A bunch of 4 and 5 stars.
OL - A bunch of 4 and 5 stars.
DL - A bunch of 4 and 5 stars.
BUCK - A bunch of 4 and 5 stars.
LB - A bunch of 4 and 5 stars.
DB - A bunch of 4 and 5 stars.
Once they start turning us down, we will go down the list to guys who are not wanted by as many big time programs and are easier to get. Fortunately Pete and staff have a good history of picking winners from those kids.
However, we offer 90% of the same kids that USC, UCLA, Stanford, Michigan, etc. does. If they all said yes, we'd have a class of top 100 players.
But because that doesn't happen, we don't get only 4 and 5 stars.
I can't think of a single kid in this last class who we offered in the first wave of offers who wasn't a 4 or 5 star kid. Not one. -
Yep - those guys were both 'first-wave' offers, but if you look at it they had other offers from top schools. For whatever reason Scout/Rivals/247 were just behind on both of them. They were obviously both big time kids.dnc said:
Only ones possible I can think of are Rapp and Ty Jones, not sure if they were first wave or not?Dennis_DeYoung said:
Pete says fuck stars? Are you fucking stupid?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
Here's who we've offered so far for 2018
QB - A bunch of 4 and 5 stars.
RB - A bunch of 4 and 5 stars.
WR - A bunch of 4 and 5 stars.
TE - A bunch of 4 and 5 stars.
OL - A bunch of 4 and 5 stars.
DL - A bunch of 4 and 5 stars.
BUCK - A bunch of 4 and 5 stars.
LB - A bunch of 4 and 5 stars.
DB - A bunch of 4 and 5 stars.
Once they start turning us down, we will go down the list to guys who are not wanted by as many big time programs and are easier to get. Fortunately Pete and staff have a good history of picking winners from those kids.
However, we offer 90% of the same kids that USC, UCLA, Stanford, Michigan, etc. does. If they all said yes, we'd have a class of top 100 players.
But because that doesn't happen, we don't get only 4 and 5 stars.
I can't think of a single kid in this last class who we offered in the first wave of offers who wasn't a 4 or 5 star kid. Not one. -
I saw a video where Pete said that they do this on some kids. So yes they do.Nurple said:
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 nutsbananasnblondes said:
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 systemCokeGreaterThanPepsi said:
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.bananasnblondes said:
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 said:
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.doogville said:
I'm surprised to see DDY make such a silly argument. I guess he's indeed drinking again.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.
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?
Brandon Pili sucks right now, if he gets good at USC it tells me they coached him up really well.
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.
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. -
Jesus dude, it's an offseason bullshit article that ranks players by their production in college vs their rating in high school. It makes perfect sense.Dennis_DeYoung said:
Huh?dnc said:
So it makes sense to rerank individuals but not classes?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.
Hmmmm.
The Jesse Callier ratings are about assessing how much your program improved a kid. It's not really that complicated to follow...
Kids have some level of ability coming out of high school. Then they go to college and they either blossom a lot or regress, or stay about the same.
When you start seeing positive changes in Jesse Callier rankings (meaning they came in as a 3 and left as a 5 like Sid Jones) that implies two things that are impossible to fully disentangle: 1 - we got the kid to improve considerably and 2 - he was maybe better than his rating and we did a good job evaluating the kid.
Re-ranking classes makes no sense because you cannot disentangle those two factors by looking at performance on the field over 4 years.
The best information about a kid's abilities coming out of HS is how many experts (all the college coaches in the nation) feel he's worthy of a scholarship. So, re-ranking something that is effectively supposed to determine how good he was coming out of HS is dumb 4-years later.
Sure, sometimes coaches will miss and sometimes coaches will over-like a particular kid.
But the offers are still the BEST information about how good a kid is coming out of HS.
So - re-ranking classes is tantamount to saying coaching is not an important variable in development and that whatever a kid's 'talent-level' is was fixed during his senior year of HS. And saying that is FS.
They do the same thing in pro sports with the draft.
Of course coaching, development, injuries, off field issues, etc are factors.
You must be hanging around Tequilla's too much and trying to be the smartest guy on a board full of dummies. And the tl,dr post. -
We have imperfect data, many variables, etc.Dennis_DeYoung said:
When you start seeing positive changes in Jesse Callier rankings (meaning they came in as a 3 and left as a 5 like Sid Jones) that implies two things that are impossible to fully disentangle: 1 - we got the kid to improve considerably and 2 - he was maybe better than his rating and we did a good job evaluating the kid.
Re-ranking classes makes no sense because you cannot disentangle those two factors by looking at performance on the field over 4 years.
But I think your premise -- that coaching/talent can't be disentangled -- is incorrect. Especially when it comes to elite players.
Coaching matters, but no coach in the world is turning a tub of lard into a first round draft pick. Those players have elite talent the second they show up on campus. It's not magically discovered because coach lake can teach quick twitch muscles how to engage.
Sydney jones XVXIII being a 1st/2nd round pick categorically means he was underrated in the star system. There's no way around that.
Which again, shows that (thankfully) our staff is exceptional at actually evaluating teen boys. And three years in we have lots of data points that show Pete is skilled at finding "5 star" athletes who are not recognized as such by teen boy stalkers and other coaches.
This is crucial because we are never going to excel at recruiting the recognized 5 stars (even though we make runs at most of them), so we need the competitive advantage of being able to identify 5 star talents that are undervalued by the star system.
And jones is a perfect example of that and a caution that tbs ratings are just one factor in identifying elite players. -
So, you think you just disentangled coaching and talent, huh? Man, you should sell this!!!! Amazing job.doogville said:
We have imperfect data, many variables, etc.Dennis_DeYoung said:
When you start seeing positive changes in Jesse Callier rankings (meaning they came in as a 3 and left as a 5 like Sid Jones) that implies two things that are impossible to fully disentangle: 1 - we got the kid to improve considerably and 2 - he was maybe better than his rating and we did a good job evaluating the kid.
Re-ranking classes makes no sense because you cannot disentangle those two factors by looking at performance on the field over 4 years.
But I think your premise -- that coaching/talent can't be disentangled -- is incorrect. Especially when it comes to elite players.
Coaching matters, but no coach in the world is turning a tub of lard into a first round draft pick. Those players have elite talent the second they show up on campus. It's not magically discovered because coach lake can teach quick twitch muscles how to engage.
Sydney jones XVXIII being a 1st/2nd round pick categorically means he was underrated in the star system. There's no way around that.
Which again, shows that (thankfully) our staff is exceptional at actually evaluating teen boys. And three years in we have lots of data points that show Pete is skilled at finding "5 star" athletes who are not recognized as such by teen boy stalkers and other coaches.
This is crucial because we are never going to excel at recruiting the recognized 5 stars (even though we make runs at most of them), so we need the competitive advantage of being able to identify 5 star talents that are undervalued by the star system.
And jones is a perfect example of that and a caution that tbs ratings are just one factor in identifying elite players. -
Huh?
Sydney jones was the 84th ranked corner in the country according to scout.
But by all means pick this as your hill to die on in defense of Brandon huffman's talent evaluation skills.
@CokeGreaterThanPepsi put me and DDY in the octagon and let us fight to death over stars on the pod. No wheelchairs allowed.
