What is your grade for this recruiting class?
Comments
-
B+Oh fuck now you've opened the floodgates for Tequilla to opine about different university grading systems.
-
B+By position:
QB - D (Haener)
RB - A- (assuming Salvon is a RB)
WR - A (Ty, Cook, Bynum)
TE - A (Bryant, Otton)
OL - B- (Bain, Norgaard, Kirkland)
D Line - B- (Gaye, Tryon)
LB - B+ (Ngata)
DB - A- (Molden, Taylor, McKinney)
-
BIs it true Mora went after Haener?
-
B+By position (good idea @bananasnblondes)
QB - F (Haener is not "better than nothing")
RB - A (Ahmed is a stud)
WR - A (Jones, Bynum & Cook: amazeballs)
TE - A (Otton & Bryant - like them both a lot)
OL - C+ (Kirkland, Bainivalu, Norgy - add Fozzy for an A)
DT - C (Gaye - just need another guy here)
OLB - B+ (Tryon, Lolohea: kind of weird, but good)
LB - B (like Ngata, but it's just one guy)
DB - A- (Molden, Taylor, McKinney - A+ if we get IPM or Ah You) -
BWatch Haener win a Heisman hahaha.......
-
A-
Where are your DEs?Dennis_DeYoung said:By position (good idea @bananasnblondes)
QB - F (Haener is not "better than nothing")
RB - A (Ahmed is a stud)
WR - A (Jones, Bynum & Cook: amazeballs)
TE - A (Otton & Bryant - like them both a lot)
OL - C+ (Kirkland, Bainivalu, Norgy - add Fozzy for an A)
DT - C (Gaye - just need another guy here)
OLB - B+ (Tryon, Lolohea: kind of weird, but good)
LB - B (like Ngata, but it's just one guy)
DB - A- (Molden, Taylor, McKinney - A+ if we get IPM or Ah You)
(the following is one of the first google image searches for "faggy wink")
-
AThis class though is an A. Best class we signed in well over a decade.
Yeah it sucks that we did not get another DT or a better QB but when watching the film for the guys we signed I like every single one of them (well besides Haener and the Punter (who watches punter highlights)).
This is probably the first class in a decade that I don't find myself thinking, "This guy will never see the field", "He is too slow", "can't move his feet", "concrete in his shoes..." etc., about half our damn class...
-
BYou know booty shorts are done right when the pockets show
-
A-
This is basically where I am at. Losing Marlon like that was an emotional blow but overall we landed an amazing percentage of our "Plan A" targets and the two positions of weakness are two positions in which the current roster is pretty set (QB and DT.) We missed on a lot of OL guys but when your plan C guy is a UCLA commit with offers from more than half the conference that isn't the worst position to be in.Mad_Son said:My basic view is we "over-achieved" at every position except OL, DL, and QB. I mean, outstanding is the expectation but if we ever achieved the national championship caliber athletes at every position goal that is really an A+ in my mind. OL is close to desirable obviously Sarrell leaving the state was a disappointment but doesn't effect the quality of the group we did sign. DL is a knock down, not because of losing the Nansen Boy but because Gaye alone is not enough. We needed one more. QB is also a big shortcoming, so each of those is a knock down. It was basically either a B+ or an A- in my eyes but just really the great quality across the board really made me lean A-. If we used the University of Wisconsin rating system of A, AB, B, BC, etc then AB is the clear choice and it looks like 71% of respondents thus far agree.
Look at it another way- how many guys did we pursue with mutual interest and not land?
CB- ?
S- IPM, Ah You
ILB-?
DE/OLB- DJ
DT- Marlon, Tufele
OL- Foster, AVT, Umana, Davis, Jackson, Ford.
WR- ?
TE- ?
RB- Connor
QB- A bunch. Seemed like we were offering someone new every week for awhile there.
I am probably missing some but clearly it is a short list. Especially considering how high we were aiming. -
B-The program needs 2 - 4* DL and OL per class to be at the A level we got 1.
Not meant to be a knock on the kids UW got, they're studs. If they can establish the run and stop it they'll be tough to beat.
It's all about the trenches.
