Can a team with only 28 four star plus recruits on the roster win a Natty?

YellowSnow

YellowSnow

Hell Yes - Pete

@CokeGreaterThanPepsi , do you have any idea of how many BC's, 2009 BSU had on their roster? Was trying to research this AM and Scout doesn't seem to go back that far. Couldn't have been more than like 8- 10 right? Obviously, that squad wasn't going to be 2009 Bamma, but they might have been good enough to be in the CFP that year had it existed. Seeing what this staff has been able to do with 3 star kids with high ceilings, part of me thinks Pete's model could win a Natty before crossing the 40 BC on roster threshold.

FireCohen

Hell Yes - Pete

Yes, if the rest are 5 stars they should be fucking crushing it.

CuntWaffle

Hell Yes - Pete

Empterman was a 2 star

YellowSnow

Hell Yes - Pete

I was pitching a tint so hard last night listening to the TSIO drinking all the purple kool aid, that I think it can be done, or, at least, if we return the CFP, Allah willing, we won't be as outclassed as we were last year.

dnc

Hell Yes - Pete

Yes, but only if the team is elite in identifying 3 star talent and in development.

I think UW is pretty clearly elite in development, and probably elite in identifying that talent.

So WHASWTNC but it's still unlikely until the talent level is raised.

animate

No Fucking Way - Climpson set the current world records with only 40

not yet ... close but not yet ...

YellowSnow

Hell Yes - Pete

dnc said:

Yes, but only if the team is elite in identifying 3 star talent and in development.

I think UW is pretty clearly elite in development, and probably elite in identifying that talent.

So WHASWTNC but it's still unlikely until the talent level is raised.

As Teq said in pod, bet the field against us as odds are long, but it's not as far fetched as you think. And really the roster has plenty of 3 star guys who are All Pac / All American level producers, so this squad doesn't have the "feel" of only having 28 Blue Chippers.

89ute

No Fucking Way - Climpson set the current world records with only 40

YellowSnow said:

@CokeGreaterThanPepsi , do you have any idea of how many BC's, 2009 BSU had on their roster? Was trying to research this AM and Scout doesn't seem to go back that far. Couldn't have been more than like 8- 10 right? Obviously, that squad wasn't going to be 2009 Bamma, but they might have been good enough to be in the CFP that year had it existed. Seeing what this staff has been able to do with 3 star kids with high ceilings, part of me thinks Pete's model could win a Natty before crossing the 40 BC on roster threshold.

Utah 2004 and Utah 2008. Very few four stars, probably two? I suspect Boise was the same. After being a part of 2004 and 2008 BCS busters (that's a we motherfuckers) and thinking we were the shit and all this BCS/non-BSC was a bunch of shit and nothing more that the big boys trying to keep the little guys down, they were right. If either team played a BCS schedule, no fucking way either team goes undefeated. Maybe 10 wins and that's a stretch.

Depth and talent are real. Joining the Pac-10 was a big fucking wake up call. Both of our undefeated teams were loaded with NFL players but beyond the ones, there was nothing.

We were fucking lucky to have virtually no injuries both years.

YellowSnow

Hell Yes - Pete

89ute said:

YellowSnow said:

@CokeGreaterThanPepsi , do you have any idea of how many BC's, 2009 BSU had on their roster? Was trying to research this AM and Scout doesn't seem to go back that far. Couldn't have been more than like 8- 10 right? Obviously, that squad wasn't going to be 2009 Bamma, but they might have been good enough to be in the CFP that year had it existed. Seeing what this staff has been able to do with 3 star kids with high ceilings, part of me thinks Pete's model could win a Natty before crossing the 40 BC on roster threshold.

Utah 2004 and Utah 2008. Very few four stars, probably two? I suspect Boise was the same. After being a part of 2004 and 2008 BCS busters (that's a we motherfuckers) and thinking we were the shit and all this BCS/non-BSC was a bunch of shit and nothing more that the big boys trying to keep the little guys down, they were right. If either team played a BCS schedule, no fucking way either team goes undefeated. Maybe 10 wins and that's a stretch.

Depth and talent are real. Joining the Pac-10 was a big fucking wake up call. Both of our undefeated teams were loaded with NFL players but beyond the ones, there was nothing.

We were fucking lucky to have virtually no injuries both years.

Agree StonesUte that it would have been unlikely for those Utah or BSU to run the table through a Pac 10/12 schedule. Sure they could get up for 1 YUGE game to upset Oklahomo or beat pre Bammer Natty Saban, but that ain't the same as having to play other talented teams week in / week out. That said, the level of overall talent that Pete and his staff are working with at the moment, vastly exceeds anything he had a Boise or Meyer/Wittingham had at Utard.

89ute

No Fucking Way - Climpson set the current world records with only 40

YellowSnow said:

89ute said:

YellowSnow said:

@CokeGreaterThanPepsi , do you have any idea of how many BC's, 2009 BSU had on their roster? Was trying to research this AM and Scout doesn't seem to go back that far. Couldn't have been more than like 8- 10 right? Obviously, that squad wasn't going to be 2009 Bamma, but they might have been good enough to be in the CFP that year had it existed. Seeing what this staff has been able to do with 3 star kids with high ceilings, part of me thinks Pete's model could win a Natty before crossing the 40 BC on roster threshold.

Utah 2004 and Utah 2008. Very few four stars, probably two? I suspect Boise was the same. After being a part of 2004 and 2008 BCS busters (that's a we motherfuckers) and thinking we were the shit and all this BCS/non-BSC was a bunch of shit and nothing more that the big boys trying to keep the little guys down, they were right. If either team played a BCS schedule, no fucking way either team goes undefeated. Maybe 10 wins and that's a stretch.

Depth and talent are real. Joining the Pac-10 was a big fucking wake up call. Both of our undefeated teams were loaded with NFL players but beyond the ones, there was nothing.

We were fucking lucky to have virtually no injuries both years.

Agree StonesUte that it would have been unlikely for those Utah or BSU to run the table through a Pac 10/12 schedule. Sure they could get up for 1 YUGE game to upset Oklahomo or beat pre Bammer Natty Saban, but that ain't the same as having to play other talented teams week in / week out. That said, the level of overall talent that Pete and his staff are working with at the moment, vastly exceeds anything he had a Boise or Meyer/Wittingham had at Utard.

I think the reason you need at least 40 is because of this. Watch #13, who is in the Mountain West right now where he belongs.

https://youtu.be/GgwhvMMXwfI

Remember your right guard against Alabama? You can't have one single hole in your depth or you'll get exposed by the opposing coach.

YellowSnow

Hell Yes - Pete

89ute said:

YellowSnow said:

89ute said:

YellowSnow said:

@CokeGreaterThanPepsi , do you have any idea of how many BC's, 2009 BSU had on their roster? Was trying to research this AM and Scout doesn't seem to go back that far. Couldn't have been more than like 8- 10 right? Obviously, that squad wasn't going to be 2009 Bamma, but they might have been good enough to be in the CFP that year had it existed. Seeing what this staff has been able to do with 3 star kids with high ceilings, part of me thinks Pete's model could win a Natty before crossing the 40 BC on roster threshold.

Utah 2004 and Utah 2008. Very few four stars, probably two? I suspect Boise was the same. After being a part of 2004 and 2008 BCS busters (that's a we motherfuckers) and thinking we were the shit and all this BCS/non-BSC was a bunch of shit and nothing more that the big boys trying to keep the little guys down, they were right. If either team played a BCS schedule, no fucking way either team goes undefeated. Maybe 10 wins and that's a stretch.

Depth and talent are real. Joining the Pac-10 was a big fucking wake up call. Both of our undefeated teams were loaded with NFL players but beyond the ones, there was nothing.

We were fucking lucky to have virtually no injuries both years.

Agree StonesUte that it would have been unlikely for those Utah or BSU to run the table through a Pac 10/12 schedule. Sure they could get up for 1 YUGE game to upset Oklahomo or beat pre Bammer Natty Saban, but that ain't the same as having to play other talented teams week in / week out. That said, the level of overall talent that Pete and his staff are working with at the moment, vastly exceeds anything he had a Boise or Meyer/Wittingham had at Utard.

I think the reason you need at least 40 is because of this. Watch #13, who is in the Mountain West right now where he belongs.

https://youtu.be/GgwhvMMXwfI

Remember your right guard against Alabama? You can't have one single hole in your depth or you'll get exposed by the opposing coach.

Yeah Nick Harris struggled as a true frosh at 265 lbs against high draft pick NFL defensive lineman. 2nd or 3rd year Nick Harris at 290 + pounds isn't the same level of liability. #13 for Utah is some JC transfer who probably sucks.

dnc

Hell Yes - Pete

YellowSnow said:

Can a team with only 28 four star plus recruits on the roster win a Natty?

BearsWiin

No Fucking Way - Climpson set the current world records with only 40

Cal has no chnace

Fenderbender123

Hell Yes - Pete

If there are enough plane crashes, any team can win the Natty.

89ute

No Fucking Way - Climpson set the current world records with only 40

YellowSnow said:

89ute said:

YellowSnow said:

89ute said:

YellowSnow said:

@CokeGreaterThanPepsi , do you have any idea of how many BC's, 2009 BSU had on their roster? Was trying to research this AM and Scout doesn't seem to go back that far. Couldn't have been more than like 8- 10 right? Obviously, that squad wasn't going to be 2009 Bamma, but they might have been good enough to be in the CFP that year had it existed. Seeing what this staff has been able to do with 3 star kids with high ceilings, part of me thinks Pete's model could win a Natty before crossing the 40 BC on roster threshold.

Utah 2004 and Utah 2008. Very few four stars, probably two? I suspect Boise was the same. After being a part of 2004 and 2008 BCS busters (that's a we motherfuckers) and thinking we were the shit and all this BCS/non-BSC was a bunch of shit and nothing more that the big boys trying to keep the little guys down, they were right. If either team played a BCS schedule, no fucking way either team goes undefeated. Maybe 10 wins and that's a stretch.

Depth and talent are real. Joining the Pac-10 was a big fucking wake up call. Both of our undefeated teams were loaded with NFL players but beyond the ones, there was nothing.

We were fucking lucky to have virtually no injuries both years.

Agree StonesUte that it would have been unlikely for those Utah or BSU to run the table through a Pac 10/12 schedule. Sure they could get up for 1 YUGE game to upset Oklahomo or beat pre Bammer Natty Saban, but that ain't the same as having to play other talented teams week in / week out. That said, the level of overall talent that Pete and his staff are working with at the moment, vastly exceeds anything he had a Boise or Meyer/Wittingham had at Utard.

I think the reason you need at least 40 is because of this. Watch #13, who is in the Mountain West right now where he belongs.

https://youtu.be/GgwhvMMXwfI

Remember your right guard against Alabama? You can't have one single hole in your depth or you'll get exposed by the opposing coach.

Yeah Nick Harris struggled as a true frosh at 265 lbs against high draft pick NFL defensive lineman. 2nd or 3rd year Nick Harris at 290 + pounds isn't the same level of liability. #13 for Utah is some JC transfer who probably sucks.

If you don't have 40 blue chips, you're going to have a Nick Harris somewhere on your starting roster. My point about #13 and Nick is to exemplify what happens when you have a weak link. Top shelf coaching can't cover up a guy or two or five who are a step slower or a little bit weaker or a little stoopider for an entire season. At some point they are going to cost you a game.

Pitchfork51

No Fucking Way - Climpson set the current world records with only 40

For teams not named usc/ucla in the conference the big difference is having a lot of the high 3 stars that you win recruiting battles for


Getting 8 4 star guys then a bunch of crappy low level 3 stars that you beat out Oregon State for is no good.

dnc

Hell Yes - Pete

Pitchfork51 said:

For teams not named usc/ucla in the conference the big difference is having a lot of the high 3 stars that you win recruiting battles for


Getting 8 4 star guys then a bunch of crappy low level 3 stars that you beat out Oregon State for is no good.

Yep.

And this is the biggest flaw of the many flaws in the star system. The gap between a high 3 and low 3 star player is much bigger than the gap between a high 4 and low 4 or high 5 and low 5. The problem is nobody wants to call somebody a 1 star kid or even too many a 2 star kid, so basically EVERYBODY who gets a power 5 offer gets dumped into the 3 star category.

If these sites had any balls and named the absolute bottom tier FCS recruits 1 stars, the tier above them 2, the tier above that 3, etc this stuff would balance out better. But they won't, so we get massive swings in 3 star quality.

RaceBannon

BearsWiin said:

Cal has no chnace

Ranked too high imo

Pitchfork51

No Fucking Way - Climpson set the current world records with only 40

dnc said:

Pitchfork51 said:

For teams not named usc/ucla in the conference the big difference is having a lot of the high 3 stars that you win recruiting battles for


Getting 8 4 star guys then a bunch of crappy low level 3 stars that you beat out Oregon State for is no good.

Yep.

And this is the biggest flaw of the many flaws in the star system. The gap between a high 3 and low 3 star player is much bigger than the gap between a high 4 and low 4 or high 5 and low 5. The problem is nobody wants to call somebody a 1 star kid or even too many a 2 star kid, so basically EVERYBODY who gets a power 5 offer gets dumped into the 3 star category.

If these sites had any balls and named the absolute bottom tier FCS recruits 1 stars, the tier above them 2, the tier above that 3, etc this stuff would balance out better. But they won't, so we get massive swings in 3 star quality.

Yeah you'll get guys in a recuriting battle with like usc ucla Washington and asu and people will be like he should be a 4 star!

No. The guys with like 2 power 5 offers should be 2 stars.


For example, race. Solid 3 stars.
He can be a PAC level contributor maybe even starter. Maybe everyone wants him. But age holds him back.

I am a solid 2 star. Only the home town team wants me and the huskies are willing to take me if they don't get their top guys.

dongman

Why doesn't Fett pull his fat tits up to the desk and chime in?