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

Washington vs Oregon recruiting dick measuring contest

insinceredawg
insinceredawg Member Posts: 5,117
in The Fisching Hole (Recruiting)
I know Doogs and Quooks will say they prefer their team's class over the other but even if I were to try to be objective, it's hard to say Oregon's class is better than ours. Their higher rating is driven primarily by larger numbers (26 vs 22 signees) and Thibs but when you look at position by position, the only areas the Ducks beat us straight up were at WR, TE, and on the edge. Our class is stronger in the trenches on both sides and in the secondary.

QB
UW: Dylan Morris (4*)
UO: Cale Millen (3*)
Edge: UW
UW had their pick between the two

RB
UW: Cam Davis (4*)
UO: Sean Dollars (4*), Jayvaun Wilson (3*)
Edge: Even
UW preferred Davis over Dollars but Ducks got their “big back” while we struck out on Charbonnet

WR
UW: Taj Davis (3*)
UO: Mycah Pittman (4*), Josh Delgado (4*), Lance Wilhoite (4*), JR Waters (3*)
Edge: UO

TE
UW: None
UO: Patrick Herbert (4*)
Edge: UO

OL
UW: Julius Buelow (4*), Nathan Kalepo (4*), Troy Fautanu (4*), Corey Luciano (3*)
UO: Malaesala Aumvavae-Laulu (4*), Jonah Tauanu’u (4*), Logan Sagapolu (3*)
Edge: UW

DL
UW: Faatui Tuitele (4*), Jacob Bandes (4*), Sama Paama (4*), Noa Ngalu (3*)
UO: Keyon Ware-Hudson (4*), Kristian Williams (3*), Suaava Poti (3*)
Edge: UW

OLB/BUCK
UW: Laiatu Latu (4*), Bralen Trice (3*)
UO: Kayvon Thibodeaux (5*), Isaac Townsend (3*), Brandon Dorlus (3*), Treven Ma’ae (3*)
Edge: UO

ILB
UW: Josh Calvert (4*), Daniel Heimuli (4*), Miki Ah You (3*), Alphonzo Tuputala (3*)
UO: Mase Funa (4*), Ge’mon Eaford (4*), Dru Mathis (3*)
Edge: UW

DB
UW: Trent McDuffie (4*), Asa Turner (4*), Kamren Fabiculanan (4*), Cam Williams (3*)
UO: Mykael Wright (4*), Trikweze Bridges (3*), Jamal Hill (3*), DJ James (3*)
Edge: UW

K
UW: Tim Horn (3*)
UO: Camden Lewis (3*)
Edge: UW
Oregon offered Horn before Lewis
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
«134

Comments

  • KevininTacoma
    KevininTacoma Member Posts: 122
    UW got 14 4*s. Ducks had 12 4*/5*
    Ducks class is better due to volume
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannon
    RaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 113,718 Founders Club
    We lost
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • FireCohen
    FireCohen Member Posts: 21,823
    RaceBannon said:

    We lost

    Ducking doogs forget that the game won on the field
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • haie
    haie Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 23,694 Founders Club
    edited February 2019
    You have to bury Oregon in Seattle next year to keep your job.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • whatshouldicareabout
    whatshouldicareabout Member Posts: 12,990
    haie said:

    You have to bury Oregon in Seattle next year to keep your job.

    You want to fire Petersen after he has built Washington into the 6th best program in the country?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannon
    RaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 113,718 Founders Club
    whatshouldicareabout said:

    haie said:

    You have to bury Oregon in Seattle next year to keep your job.

    You want to fire Petersen after he has built Washington into the 6th best program in the country?
    Not even 10-2 top ten

    Heat up the seat
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Canadawg
    Canadawg Member Posts: 5,264
    whatshouldicareabout said:

    haie said:

    You have to bury Oregon in Seattle next year to keep your job.

    You want to fire Petersen after he has built Washington into the 6th best program in the country?
    @whatshouldicareabout rank top 10
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • insinceredawg
    insinceredawg Member Posts: 5,117
    With the addition of Puka, I'm calling it a tie for WR recruiting. Yes the Ducks got four WRs including three 4* but I think among the six WRs signed between the two schools, Puka and Davis were our top two. And if the recruiting analysts are to be believed, we passed on both Pittman and Delgado.

    Position by position UW wins 6-2-2 with the two losses at TE and OLB/BUCK.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • bananasnblondes
    bananasnblondes Member Posts: 15,506
    insinceredawg said:

    With the addition of Puka, I'm calling it a tie for WR recruiting. Yes the Ducks got four WRs including three 4* but I think among the six WRs signed between the two schools, Puka and Davis were our top two. And if the recruiting analysts are to be believed, we passed on both Pittman and Delgado.

    Position by position UW wins 6-2-2 with the two losses at TE and OLB/BUCK.

    Puka is the best out of the group.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • chuck
    chuck Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 11,671 Swaye's Wigwam
    bananasnblondes said:

    insinceredawg said:

    With the addition of Puka, I'm calling it a tie for WR recruiting. Yes the Ducks got four WRs including three 4* but I think among the six WRs signed between the two schools, Puka and Davis were our top two. And if the recruiting analysts are to be believed, we passed on both Pittman and Delgado.

    Position by position UW wins 6-2-2 with the two losses at TE and OLB/BUCK.

    Puka is the best out of the group.
    By a mile.

    Nacua was a huge, huge addition and raises the overall grade of the class way more than a WR normally would. The need for dominant WR, in terms of taking that next step, is really glaring and he's that kind of talent. Pittman and Delgado are JAGS and not even comparable to him.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • insinceredawg
    insinceredawg Member Posts: 5,117
    Dennis_DeYoung said:

    I hate Dooging as much as the next person, but this is all true. There are like 4 guys total in Oregon's class that we would prefer to the same guy in ours. That doesn't mean theirs sucks, tho.

    But it does mean their class isn't better than ours. And it isn't.

    Is Cale Millen one of the 4?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • insinceredawg
    insinceredawg Member Posts: 5,117
    HillsboroDuck said:

    bananasnblondes said:

    insinceredawg said:

    With the addition of Puka, I'm calling it a tie for WR recruiting. Yes the Ducks got four WRs including three 4* but I think among the six WRs signed between the two schools, Puka and Davis were our top two. And if the recruiting analysts are to be believed, we passed on both Pittman and Delgado.

    Position by position UW wins 6-2-2 with the two losses at TE and OLB/BUCK.

    Puka is the best out of the group.
    Rather easily.

    Davis isn't #2 though.
    Not in the rankings but I think he was higher on the coaches' board than the other guys. Didn't we accept his commitment around the same time we started to "cool" on Delgado and Pittman?

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • UW_Doog_Bot
    UW_Doog_Bot Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 18,043 Founders Club
    Dennis_DeYoung said:

    insinceredawg said:

    HillsboroDuck said:

    bananasnblondes said:

    insinceredawg said:

    With the addition of Puka, I'm calling it a tie for WR recruiting. Yes the Ducks got four WRs including three 4* but I think among the six WRs signed between the two schools, Puka and Davis were our top two. And if the recruiting analysts are to be believed, we passed on both Pittman and Delgado.

    Position by position UW wins 6-2-2 with the two losses at TE and OLB/BUCK.

    Puka is the best out of the group.
    Rather easily.

    Davis isn't #2 though.
    Not in the rankings but I think he was higher on the coaches' board than the other guys. Didn't we accept his commitment around the same time we started to "cool" on Delgado and Pittman?

    Yeah - I think the way we had WRs ranked, Davis was higher than Delgado or Pittman for us. I personally like Pittman better, but I always thought Delgado and Dollars were really not that good.

    I think the guys OUR STAFF would swap go like this...

    I think we'd take Jonah T as an add on, not as a swap. Kayvon and Ma'ae we would've taken over Trice I think. Though Ma'ae is a little confusing. Funa we liked, but he doesn't really fit our D - would we take him over Trice? Probably? Maybe.

    Mykael Wright we would've taken over KamFab, pretty sure about that.

    So, Kayvon's a weird one because of OKG shit, but if we could just have him, duh we'd take him.

    I'd say the final verdict is that we would've taken Jonah, Kayvon, Maybe Funa, maybe Ma'ae and Wright.
    Talent only considered Kayvon no question.

    All the other baggage? It's all speculation that none of us are ever likely to know for sure.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • backthepack
    backthepack Member Posts: 19,937
    Eaford sucks, he’s small and slow.


    Wilhoite is good.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Ballz
    Ballz Member Posts: 4,735
    edited February 2019
    Ma'ae sucks. His film sucks. He's soft. He fell to Oregon. They were his best committable offer. In no way did UW ever want Ma'ae over Trice. They never even brought Ma'ae up for a visit. A lot of schools just offered him without seriously recruiting him. I firmly believe Oregon was his best committable option. Latu was also UW's #1 OLB target so I don't see how Oregon beat UW at OLB recruiting? If our coaches are great at evaluating talent and they got Latu who they preferred over Kayvon and Trice who they preferred over Ma'ae and had to beat Notre Dame for, how is that not an overall win for UW in comparison to Oregon? I think in 2-3 years it will be abundantly clear Latu and Trice combined are better than KT and Ma'ae.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HillsboroDuck
    HillsboroDuck Member Posts: 9,186
    edited February 2019
    Dennis_DeYoung said:

    greenblood said:

    I think Oregon got more substance in this class than what they've had in recent years (Taggart/Helfrich)

    Oregon's recruiting is going in the right direction. Did they beat Washington?...in some areas. Did Washington beat Oregon?...in some areas. I think you are greatly underestimating how good some of Oregon's recruits are. Players like Eaford. I think Eaford is a stud. We can talk about Pittman, and Delgado, but the WR I'm actually most excited about is JR Waters. He tore it up at Oregon's SNL practice. He isn't highly touted, but he's 6'3" and very athletic. He has the most upside of Oregon's entire WR class. Cale Millen has also proven to be better than originally thought. He wasn't even a top 600 player when he picked Oregon, but is now around 300.

    Even with all this what are we arguing about? Both teams finished roughly in the top 10 in recruiting this year, and had more 4 and 5 stars than the rest of the conference combined. I actually celebrate this, because we finally might get the rivalry we have all missed since the very early 2000's. Comparing everybody else west of Texas, we are comparing one Magnum vs another. I think it's close enough that we leave it to the field to decide.

    Well - I really agree with your last point here... our classes are, in essence and in terms of raw material, equivalent.

    There is some self-selection bias which we probably have some right to believe helps us (given Pete's success and hit rate), but that's hard to know.

    Ultimately, I think of it as tiers and if you look at the 247 ratings, there were 3 teams that were clearly above the pack: tOSU, Bama and UGA (all 93+ avg) Then Penn State was a good bit above 91. But then you move to teams .89+ (basically averaging a 4-star) and we are right in there with about 10 other teams. So that's the tier we're in.

    From here on, it's about development, fit with scheme, coaching, etc...

    The one thing I hate about these averages is that just a simple fucking weighting algorithm should really adjust these.

    #1 - They should not allow 2 QBs to count, just take the highest one.

    #2 - They should not weight the #29 player in Clemson's class equally to the #1 player. That screwed Clemson this year because taking some flyers on guys who are like .82s shouldn't cancel out guys that are .98s.

    If you look at how many players typically make it through to the end from a given class it's about 18. So one way to do this would be to average the first 17-19 whatever, then put everyone below that as 1 player and add that to the average. You could also just weight it based on empirical performance, but that would actually take them knowing what they are doing (we have enough data to easily tell how players perform based on rating; you could take that and weight each player based on their expected performance)... however, that's a little over the top for me.

    #3 - Get the fucking kickers out of it. Until we really know who is going to be good (it's fucking important - it's just we have no fucking idea) and have a good way to rate them, let's not just punish people for taking kickers.

    I'm with you on #3, disagree on the others. Having two stud QB's >> one stud QB. I get that theres' a point of diminishing returns, but I don't think the second QB is completely superfluous.

    On #2, you should be graded on how you fill the scholarship you are trying to fill. If Clemson or UW wants to take fliers on guys fine, but that should absolutely factor into the rankings if other teams are filling those last slots with real talent.

    How I'd do the rankings is simple: Drop specialists completely from the rankings. Average the score ranking (not the star ranking) of the other signed recruits, but have some sort of penalty if a school takes such a small class that they aren't filling their projected opening schoolies.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • greenblood
    greenblood Member Posts: 14,559
    edited February 2019
    Looking at the dreck that UCLA, Arizona, and even USC picked up this year...You could make the argument that the top 5 teams in the conference are in the North (Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Stanford, and Cal)

    I'm LIPO on Herm and ASU. But on a neutral field, how many of you would bet against one of those 5 against the South champion?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Dennis_DeYoung
    Dennis_DeYoung Member Posts: 14,754
    HillsboroDuck said:

    Dennis_DeYoung said:

    greenblood said:

    I think Oregon got more substance in this class than what they've had in recent years (Taggart/Helfrich)

    Oregon's recruiting is going in the right direction. Did they beat Washington?...in some areas. Did Washington beat Oregon?...in some areas. I think you are greatly underestimating how good some of Oregon's recruits are. Players like Eaford. I think Eaford is a stud. We can talk about Pittman, and Delgado, but the WR I'm actually most excited about is JR Waters. He tore it up at Oregon's SNL practice. He isn't highly touted, but he's 6'3" and very athletic. He has the most upside of Oregon's entire WR class. Cale Millen has also proven to be better than originally thought. He wasn't even a top 600 player when he picked Oregon, but is now around 300.

    Even with all this what are we arguing about? Both teams finished roughly in the top 10 in recruiting this year, and had more 4 and 5 stars than the rest of the conference combined. I actually celebrate this, because we finally might get the rivalry we have all missed since the very early 2000's. Comparing everybody else west of Texas, we are comparing one Magnum vs another. I think it's close enough that we leave it to the field to decide.

    Well - I really agree with your last point here... our classes are, in essence and in terms of raw material, equivalent.

    There is some self-selection bias which we probably have some right to believe helps us (given Pete's success and hit rate), but that's hard to know.

    Ultimately, I think of it as tiers and if you look at the 247 ratings, there were 3 teams that were clearly above the pack: tOSU, Bama and UGA (all 93+ avg) Then Penn State was a good bit above 91. But then you move to teams .89+ (basically averaging a 4-star) and we are right in there with about 10 other teams. So that's the tier we're in.

    From here on, it's about development, fit with scheme, coaching, etc...

    The one thing I hate about these averages is that just a simple fucking weighting algorithm should really adjust these.

    #1 - They should not allow 2 QBs to count, just take the highest one.

    #2 - They should not weight the #29 player in Clemson's class equally to the #1 player. That screwed Clemson this year because taking some flyers on guys who are like .82s shouldn't cancel out guys that are .98s.

    If you look at how many players typically make it through to the end from a given class it's about 18. So one way to do this would be to average the first 17-19 whatever, then put everyone below that as 1 player and add that to the average. You could also just weight it based on empirical performance, but that would actually take them knowing what they are doing (we have enough data to easily tell how players perform based on rating; you could take that and weight each player based on their expected performance)... however, that's a little over the top for me.

    #3 - Get the fucking kickers out of it. Until we really know who is going to be good (it's fucking important - it's just we have no fucking idea) and have a good way to rate them, let's not just punish people for taking kickers.

    I'm with you on #3, disagree on the others. Having two stud QB's >> one stud QB. I get that theres' a point of diminishing returns, but I don't think the second QB is completely superfluous.

    On #2, you should be graded on how you fill the scholarship you are trying to fill. If Clemson or UW wants to take fliers on guys fine, but that should absolutely factor into the rankings if other teams are filling those last slots with real talent.

    How I'd do the rankings is simple: Drop specialists completely from the rankings. Average the score ranking (not the star ranking) of the other signed recruits, but have some sort of penalty if a school takes such a small class that they aren't filling their projected opening schoolies.
    You're really wrong on the first two...

    #1 you're wrong because you are FS. I'm including the top QB in the class. If you get two 5* .99 QBs it makes no fucking sense to rank that as two players. Ranking it as one captures the issue. QBs are generally over-rated as well. It does not make any fucking sense to include 2 QBs as separate recruits. They will not both play equally.

    #2 makes no fucking sense. Again. You are insanely wrong about this. Weighing players you KNOW A PRIORI are less likely to have an impact on your team the same as players YOU KNOW A PRIORI ARE is just a way to make these ratings inaccurate and nothing else. That is a fucking statistical fact.

    THEIR #27 PLAYER IS NOT NEARLY AS LIKELY TO IMPACT THE TEAM YOU MORON. That is the issue. It's very unlikely to actually BE A SLOT. Guys wash out. The other problem is that you are still stuck in the fucktarded version of reality where individual player ratings matter. It's only important in AGGREGATE so we should try to improve the AGGREGATE prediction, not punish them for recruiting low rated players if they get high rated players. JESUS FUCK.

    That is fucking full on stats retard bullshit.

    Your point doesn't even make any fucking sense... You just like the lazy fan version 'I don't understand kickers and it fucks up our rating, so get rid of them, position players matter more!' - foh with that.

    The fact is, if we had an accurate prediction of kicker performance, they should probably be weighted MORE than what other players are.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Peterman
    Peterman Member Posts: 675
    Delgado makes baccellia look like Megatron

    Oh and wasn't someone here saying Wright was a dummy and might not qualify?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Dennis_DeYoung
    Dennis_DeYoung Member Posts: 14,754
    edited February 2019
    Let me go over this slowly...

    Team A has a distribution of scores that are equally 100s and 00s and you have fourteen players at 100s and fourteen at 0s - you get an average of 50.

    Team B has a distribution of scores that are all 60s, such that you signed 28 players who are rated 60s - you get an average of 60.

    Say you do this for 5 years. Which team do you expect to be more successful, Team A or Team B?

    BUT TEAM A IS TEN POINTS LOWER ON AVERAGE EVERY YEAR!!!

    This is the issue with counting low scores as much as high ones.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Peterman
    Peterman Member Posts: 675
    New pood segment idea:

    The Stats Hour with Dennis: Everything You Wanted to Know But Were Afraid to Ask
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • bananasnblondes
    bananasnblondes Member Posts: 15,506
    Peterman said:

    Delgado makes baccellia look like Megatron

    Oh and wasn't someone here saying Wright was a dummy and might not qualify?

    The Wright thing was weird and could e plain why UW didnt try try hard to flip him. From what I read, he did not play a down his entire senior year because he tried to transfer 3 different times. At one point, he tried to transfer back to his original school do he could play and the coach told him to fuck off.

    I also read something about him taking classes at a community college in Eugene to get his eligibility.

    Funa was another guy that didnt play at all due to injury.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter