Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

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

On that Clemson path

2

Comments

  • CanadawgCanadawg Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 4,742 Swaye's Wigwam

    Compare the talent in the south to the west, that's why we will never be Clemson.

    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.
    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.

  • sonics1993sonics1993 Member Posts: 1,460
    Canadawg said:

    Compare the talent in the south to the west, that's why we will never be Clemson.

    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.
    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.

    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.
  • TequillaTequilla Member Posts: 19,882
    This thread is fucking stupid ... and the usual cast of idiots are nowhere to be found

    GTFO with this settling excise making BS

    This is a strong class in a number of ways ...

    UW will never out recruit the true blue bloods ... shitty metric to measure against

    The key is can we get enough talent and then put the pieces together in a way that the sum is maximized

    Sick and tired of loser mindsets
  • TequillaTequilla Member Posts: 19,882
    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,


  • sonics1993sonics1993 Member Posts: 1,460
    edited December 2019
    Canadawg said:

    Canadawg said:

    Compare the talent in the south to the west, that's why we will never be Clemson.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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 off
    That's true but you have to remember that USC is dead right now in terms of recruiting. That's only going to last one more year and once they get rid of Clay, they will wake up and start getting the majority of the talent out west. That's when recruiting will get real tough.
  • TequillaTequilla Member Posts: 19,882
    Canadawg said:

    Canadawg said:

    Compare the talent in the south to the west, that's why we will never be Clemson.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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 off
    And on top of that, what’s the right metric to measure against? Points? Avg rating? Avg rating excluding kickers?

    It’s just not something to get worked up about
  • dtddtd Member Posts: 4,820 Standard Supporter
    Tequilla said:

    This thread is fucking stupid ... and the usual cast of idiots are nowhere to be found

    Um...irony alert?
  • Beno4LifeBeno4Life Member Posts: 533
    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,


    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.
  • dtddtd Member Posts: 4,820 Standard Supporter
    Canadawg said:

    Canadawg said:

    Compare the talent in the south to the west, that's why we will never be Clemson.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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 off
    UW won't even have a hat on the table and that's your logic?
  • TequillaTequilla Member Posts: 19,882
    Beno4Life said:

    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,


    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.
    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?

    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.
  • CanadawgCanadawg Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 4,742 Swaye's Wigwam
    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.
  • backthepackbackthepack Member Posts: 19,861
    edited December 2019
    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.

    That’s because there is more of them.


    Higher % of 5 stars pan out than 4 stars etc etc.
  • Beno4LifeBeno4Life Member Posts: 533
    Tequilla said:

    Beno4Life said:

    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,


    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.
    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?

    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 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.

    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.
  • CanadawgCanadawg Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 4,742 Swaye's Wigwam

    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.

    That’s because there is more of them.


    Higher % of 5 stars pan out than 4 stars etc etc.
    True
  • FireCohenFireCohen Member Posts: 21,823
    Wow bunch a doogs out here.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,998 Founders Club
    dtd said:

    dtd said:

    dtd said:


    And now we have Oregon to contend with

    Now?
    Did I stutter?

    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
    Or with being limited to 85 scholarships.
    There's the quook

    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.
    And there's the quook again
  • EwaDawgEwaDawg Member Posts: 4,213
    dtd said:


    And now we have Oregon to contend with

    Now?

    Yes

Sign In or Register to comment.