On that Clemson path
Comments
-
UW won't even have a hat on the table and that's your logic?Canadawg said:
You may be right but saying they need a perfect class to get top 10 is a stretch. If they landed Ringo it would probably be there. Not far offsonics1993 said:
Great, a day before the early signing day that had a top ten class. By February this class will be in the mid to late teens.Canadawg said:sonics1993 said:
For UW to have a top 10 class they need to have the best instate class ever and they need to land every single one of them along with hitting most of there other targets. In the south, you can miss a lot more since theres so much talent. Plus USC needs to be terrible because if USC is on then you can forget about it.RoadDawg55 said:
There is no reason we can’t have top 10 classes, but there are so many more players to pull in the South than the West Coast. It’s not an excuse, it’s a reality.sonics1993 said:Compare the talent in the south to the west, that's why we will never be Clemson.
-
Recruiting ranking are what exactly? What’s the right metric? Do guys like Biggins/Huffman have better insight than others? Are they fortune tellers of the future?Beno4Life said:
I'm sorry, but huh? I have no idea what in the hell you're trying to communicate through words, which reminds me of Fatters' writing style. Please clarify.Tequilla said:I take recruiting ranking with a grain of salt ... there’s a bare minimum that you need to be at the table
After that, it’s all about what you do when you get them on campus
We are entering the territory you need ... you don’t play 85 players per game
We have never landed a class at the top tier nationally ... expecting us to do so as a sign of success is bound for disappointment. Aspirational goal ... absolutely.
The discussion in this thread is Top 10 ... it’s completely arbitrary. But when you separate and normalize the gaps in this range with the next handful of teams on either side what you find is comparable results. In that light ... there’s enough there to compete at the highest levels,
We don’t know how players will develop and how they react when they realize that they aren’t in high school anymore
Here’s what I care about:
You have to have a certain # of 4 stars or better ... originally the idea was 40+ but I do think it’s probably close to 50+ ... btw we are in that range
How do they get maximized on campus ... are they able to grow and improve? We often forget these kids are 17-18 years and they are far from
So get in the range of having enough players .. then if/when a lower rated guys beats seemingly more talented guys out, it’s far more likely that they actually beat them out. -
Teqs right. People act like recruiting rankings are video game stats. Lots of highly skilled players will hit more than a few elite skilled players.
-
That’s because there is more of them.Canadawg said:Teqs right. People act like recruiting rankings are video game stats. Lots of highly skilled players will hit more than a few elite skilled players.
Higher % of 5 stars pan out than 4 stars etc etc. -
I care about getting highly-rated guys, ie 4/5-star blue chips, cause empirical data says they win championships. Justin Flowe and Noah Sewell and Kelee Ringo and Bijan Robinson and Gee Scott win league titles and nattys.Tequilla said:
Recruiting ranking are what exactly? What’s the right metric? Do guys like Biggins/Huffman have better insight than others? Are they fortune tellers of the future?Beno4Life said:
I'm sorry, but huh? I have no idea what in the hell you're trying to communicate through words, which reminds me of Fatters' writing style. Please clarify.Tequilla said:I take recruiting ranking with a grain of salt ... there’s a bare minimum that you need to be at the table
After that, it’s all about what you do when you get them on campus
We are entering the territory you need ... you don’t play 85 players per game
We have never landed a class at the top tier nationally ... expecting us to do so as a sign of success is bound for disappointment. Aspirational goal ... absolutely.
The discussion in this thread is Top 10 ... it’s completely arbitrary. But when you separate and normalize the gaps in this range with the next handful of teams on either side what you find is comparable results. In that light ... there’s enough there to compete at the highest levels,
We don’t know how players will develop and how they react when they realize that they aren’t in high school anymore
Here’s what I care about:
You have to have a certain # of 4 stars or better ... originally the idea was 40+ but I do think it’s probably close to 50+ ... btw we are in that range
How do they get maximized on campus ... are they able to grow and improve? We often forget these kids are 17-18 years and they are far from
So get in the range of having enough players .. then if/when a lower rated guys beats seemingly more talented guys out, it’s far more likely that they actually beat them out.
I care about matching the style of player with the style of the program, ie size vs speed, etc. Jimmy/Kwat run a nickel D, so I want elite DBs, two-gapping DL, and fast LBs, not the McDonalds or Beef Wellingtons of the world.
I care about fit, so that dudes don't think they're bigger than the team.
Honestly, after this last abomination of a season, I want fire and swag to return to the team. I want #DeathRowDawgs and more dudes like Dick Newton trucking people and celebrating, and guys backing up their talk. -
Truebackthepack said:
That’s because there is more of them.Canadawg said:Teqs right. People act like recruiting rankings are video game stats. Lots of highly skilled players will hit more than a few elite skilled players.
Higher % of 5 stars pan out than 4 stars etc etc. -
Wow bunch a doogs out here.
-
And there's the quook againdtd said:
Not really. Clearly 85 leveled the playing field that UW was somewhat dominating. But it's been 25 fucking years, Race. Which program has a better record in the last THIRTY years? It's Oregon. And yeah, fuck '84 BYU. Was Kelee Ringo's mom even born yet? I get that you're you, but JFC, the context of everything CFB doesn't need to go back to Sonny Sixkiller to be valid.RaceBannon said:
There's the quookdtd said:
Or with being limited to 85 scholarships.RaceBannon said:
Did I stutter?dtd said:
Now?RaceBannon said:
And now we have Oregon to contend with
Brooks was three years away from the 17 year plan to lose the Rose Bowl
We did not have to contend with Oregon in recruiting -
The evidence accumulated over the past 20 years suggests you can win a Natty or get damn close with top 11- 20 type talent, BUT only if you add on the generational talent, messiah QB- i.e., Watson, Cam or Marcus. Every other NT winner going back to Miamuh in 2001 was Top 10 level rather easily. Don't recall where Oklahomo in 2000 was.Tequilla said:I take recruiting ranking with a grain of salt ... there’s a bare minimum that you need to be at the table
After that, it’s all about what you do when you get them on campus
We are entering the territory you need ... you don’t play 85 players per game
We have never landed a class at the top tier nationally ... expecting us to do so as a sign of success is bound for disappointment. Aspirational goal ... absolutely.
The discussion in this thread is Top 10 ... it’s completely arbitrary. But when you separate and normalize the gaps in this range with the next handful of teams on either side what you find is comparable results. In that light ... there’s enough there to compete at the highest levels, -
-
Good thing Huard is 81% sure to be that generational type talent.YellowSnow said:
The evidence accumulated over the past 20 years suggests you can win a Natty or get damn close with top 11- 20 type talent, BUT only if you add on the generational talent, messiah QB- i.e., Watson, Cam or Marcus. Every other NT winner going back to Miamuh in 2001 was Top 10 level rather easily. Don't recall where Oklahomo in 2000 was.Tequilla said:I take recruiting ranking with a grain of salt ... there’s a bare minimum that you need to be at the table
After that, it’s all about what you do when you get them on campus
We are entering the territory you need ... you don’t play 85 players per game
We have never landed a class at the top tier nationally ... expecting us to do so as a sign of success is bound for disappointment. Aspirational goal ... absolutely.
The discussion in this thread is Top 10 ... it’s completely arbitrary. But when you separate and normalize the gaps in this range with the next handful of teams on either side what you find is comparable results. In that light ... there’s enough there to compete at the highest levels,
edit: 2024 will be speshul -
Just like his dad and uncleSwaye said:
Good thing Huard is 81% sure to be that generational type talent.YellowSnow said:
The evidence accumulated over the past 20 years suggests you can win a Natty or get damn close with top 11- 20 type talent, BUT only if you add on the generational talent, messiah QB- i.e., Watson, Cam or Marcus. Every other NT winner going back to Miamuh in 2001 was Top 10 level rather easily. Don't recall where Oklahomo in 2000 was.Tequilla said:I take recruiting ranking with a grain of salt ... there’s a bare minimum that you need to be at the table
After that, it’s all about what you do when you get them on campus
We are entering the territory you need ... you don’t play 85 players per game
We have never landed a class at the top tier nationally ... expecting us to do so as a sign of success is bound for disappointment. Aspirational goal ... absolutely.
The discussion in this thread is Top 10 ... it’s completely arbitrary. But when you separate and normalize the gaps in this range with the next handful of teams on either side what you find is comparable results. In that light ... there’s enough there to compete at the highest levels,
edit: 2024 will be speshul
We should have got Billy Joe's kid and MADE him a QB
