Notable programs that signed equal or fewer (??) blue chips (247 composite) than UW in 2019
Comments
-
It’s important to note that under Petersen we will likely always have smaller classes. That has its pros and cons, but realistically it puts at a pretty big competitive disadvantage when many of the top 10 classes will sign 23-27 players each year and we’ll be closer to 20-22.
Signing 3-4 more players just gives you that much better odds of players panning out while at the same time churning over the bottom of your roster suddenly senioring guys or suggesting transfers. Not everybody does it, but lots of the big boys do.
Thought it was worth bringing up cause every year someone brings up “if we signed up as many players and so and so are classes would be ranked the same.” -
Counterpoint is that Pete is bringing in legit walkonsdawgs206 said:It’s important to note that under Petersen we will likely always have smaller classes. That has its pros and cons, but realistically it puts at a pretty big competitive disadvantage when many of the top 10 classes will sign 23-27 players each year and we’ll be closer to 20-22.
Signing 3-4 more players just gives you that much better odds of players panning out while at the same time churning over the bottom of your roster suddenly senioring guys or suggesting transfers. Not everybody does it, but lots of the big boys do.
Thought it was worth bringing up cause every year someone brings up “if we signed up as many players and so and so are classes would be ranked the same.” -
Some are fucking project that time to develop. King was not amazing until his Sr year. Sodawgs206 said:It’s important to note that under Petersen we will likely always have smaller classes. That has its pros and cons, but realistically it puts at a pretty big competitive disadvantage when many of the top 10 classes will sign 23-27 players each year and we’ll be closer to 20-22.
Signing 3-4 more players just gives you that much better odds of players panning out while at the same time churning over the bottom of your roster suddenly senioring guys or suggesting transfers. Not everybody does it, but lots of the big boys do.
Thought it was worth bringing up cause every year someone brings up “if we signed up as many players and so and so are classes would be ranked the same.” -
Quit living in the passed.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Nope, just taking cheap shots at little brother. It's better than being wazzu who isn't even in the conversation.greenblood said:
you seem butthurtUW_Doog_Bot said:
I thought you said notable?YellowSnow said:LSU
Oregon
Climpson
Auburn
Tenn
Florida State
USC
Sure, but it's not recent at all. Our 80's and 90's run was superior but it still doesn't make us nationally relevant until we are again.YellowSnow said:
I did. Their 2009- 14 run is still vastly superior to our 2016- 18 run. Oregon is relevant until they aren’t.UW_Doog_Bot said:
I thought you said notable?YellowSnow said:LSU
Oregon
Climpson
Auburn
Tenn
Florida State
USC -
It's the lesser of two evils for Pete.dawgs206 said:It’s important to note that under Petersen we will likely always have smaller classes. That has its pros and cons, but realistically it puts at a pretty big competitive disadvantage when many of the top 10 classes will sign 23-27 players each year and we’ll be closer to 20-22.
Signing 3-4 more players just gives you that much better odds of players panning out while at the same time churning over the bottom of your roster suddenly senioring guys or suggesting transfers. Not everybody does it, but lots of the big boys do.
Thought it was worth bringing up cause every year someone brings up “if we signed up as many players and so and so are classes would be ranked the same.”
"honor and integrity" versus "whatever it takes"
given his (lack of) apparent coffee cup stance, it is what it is.
We have to live with it and deal with the ongoing high blood pressure TBS'ing. -
Yea, I agree. Wasn't saying what is right or wrong, more so for the argument of stacking classes we are going to be at a disadvantage.animate said:
It's the lesser of two evils for Pete.dawgs206 said:It’s important to note that under Petersen we will likely always have smaller classes. That has its pros and cons, but realistically it puts at a pretty big competitive disadvantage when many of the top 10 classes will sign 23-27 players each year and we’ll be closer to 20-22.
Signing 3-4 more players just gives you that much better odds of players panning out while at the same time churning over the bottom of your roster suddenly senioring guys or suggesting transfers. Not everybody does it, but lots of the big boys do.
Thought it was worth bringing up cause every year someone brings up “if we signed up as many players and so and so are classes would be ranked the same.”
"honor and integrity" versus "whatever it takes"
given his (lack of) apparent coffee cup stance, it is what it is.
We have to live with it and deal with the ongoing high blood pressure TBS'ing.
Look at the top 7 schools (Sorry Swaye, for ease of use I went composite)
Bama - 27, 22, 29, 25 ---> 103
Georgia - 24, 26, 26, 23 ---> 99
Texas AM - 25, 23, 28, 21 --->97
Oklahoma - 24, 23, 28, 21 ---> 96
Oregon - 26, 24, 25, 21 ---> 96
Michigan - 26, 19, 30, 28 ---> 103
UW - 22, 20, 18, 17 ---> 77
That is 19-26 more players for these teams over a 4 year cycle. That is equivalent to a large recruiting class for UW EVERY 4 YEARS. Recruiting is all a numbers game. The more highly rated players you sign, the higher likelihood that some pan out. We have to hit at a much higher rate and develop much better to have success against the top teams. Yes, I know the rules have changed, but you can still mess with the numbers each class.
Getting walk-ons is a counter point, especially this year, but it doesn't close the gap much (considering how many less players we are signing). Myles Bryant is by far the best walk-on under Petersen and 1/2 the bored hates him (I stand with Myles). -
Your yellow ass looks great in those pants 👀YellowSnow said:LSU
Oregon
Climpson
Auburn
Tenn
Florida State
USC
Ohio St -
Other than Clemson those teams are notable for being in declineYellowSnow said:LSU
Oregon
Climpson
Auburn
Tenn
Florida State
USC
Ohio St
Ohio State lost the best recruiter in the game
-
Other than Clemson every program in the country is in decline.RaceBannon said:
Other than Clemson those teams are notable for being in declineYellowSnow said:LSU
Oregon
Climpson
Auburn
Tenn
Florida State
USC
Ohio St
Ohio State lost the best recruiter in the game -
But stillFremontTroll said:
Other than Clemson every program in the country is in decline.RaceBannon said:
Other than Clemson those teams are notable for being in declineYellowSnow said:LSU
Oregon
Climpson
Auburn
Tenn
Florida State
USC
Ohio St
Ohio State lost the best recruiter in the game
