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.
«1

Comments

  • DodgyBlokeDodgyBloke Member Posts: 957
    with a full roster of high rated 4 stars sure
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,998 Founders Club
    Was Stan Emptemann a 5 star? That's what I thought

    Although the 91 champs did have the highest ranked classes in school history. Funny how that works

    We actually are in the midst of the next great bumper crop

    Every 30 years UW wins a natty. Allegedly
  • DerekJohnsonDerekJohnson Administrator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 63,539 Founders Club

    Was Stan Emptemann a 5 star? That's what I thought

    Although the 91 champs did have the highest ranked classes in school history. Funny how that works

    We actually are in the midst of the next great bumper crop

    Every 30 years UW wins a natty. Allegedly

    The '88 class, which built much of that NC team, was actually considered mediocre, as I recall
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,745

    Was Stan Emptemann a 5 star? That's what I thought

    Although the 91 champs did have the highest ranked classes in school history. Funny how that works

    We actually are in the midst of the next great bumper crop

    Every 30 years UW wins a natty. Allegedly

    The '88 class, which built much of that NC team, was actually considered mediocre, as I recall
    DDY swore to me it was considered ELITE
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,998 Founders Club

    Was Stan Emptemann a 5 star? That's what I thought

    Although the 91 champs did have the highest ranked classes in school history. Funny how that works

    We actually are in the midst of the next great bumper crop

    Every 30 years UW wins a natty. Allegedly

    The '88 class, which built much of that NC team, was actually considered mediocre, as I recall
    I don't recall that but the 89 class was nails

    I thought 88 was too
  • chuckchuck Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 11,059 Swaye's Wigwam
    The answer is yes, quite easily. With a lot of 4*, good scouting and development, it's not that unusual to get 5* performance out of 4* and a few 3* guys.

    UW has done it as recently as three seasons ago. It wasnt overperforming 3* guys coming back down to earth against elite competition that derailed that team. Guys like King, Jones, Gaines, Vea, Pettis, and Gaskin held up fine. It was a couple of key injuries to a thin roster and a lack depth players with 4* physical characteristics surrounding the elite guys (most of whom had been 3* recruits). Plus a weak OL and QB.
  • DerekJohnsonDerekJohnson Administrator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 63,539 Founders Club
    edited March 2020

    Was Stan Emptemann a 5 star? That's what I thought

    Although the 91 champs did have the highest ranked classes in school history. Funny how that works

    We actually are in the midst of the next great bumper crop

    Every 30 years UW wins a natty. Allegedly

    The '88 class, which built much of that NC team, was actually considered mediocre, as I recall
    I don't recall that but the 89 class was nails

    I thought 88 was too
    As I recall, the big get in '88 was Mike Lustyk. Stan Empermananann was a two star
  • DerekJohnsonDerekJohnson Administrator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 63,539 Founders Club
    (Hoffmann told me that the players referred to Emtman as "Empo")
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,998 Founders Club
    TOP DAWGS
    A look the Huskies’ best recruiting classes of the past 30 years:

    1988: Best of the best: Steve Emtman, Lincoln Kennedy, Mark Brunell, Mario Bailey, Dave Hoffmann and Jay Barry, to name a few, helped pave the way for the most dominant period in program history.


    That's a great class

    Hoff is going to get you
  • huskyhooliganhuskyhooligan Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 5,442 Swaye's Wigwam
    Yes, but it sure helps.
  • NEsnake12NEsnake12 Member Posts: 3,792


    An example is Wattenberg. He was a low four star recruit that if he played to his exact ranking would be a 7th round pick. To almost everyone, he’s a disappointment, but he’s really close to the level he was rated as on 247, but we see the four stars and expect more.

    Love this take. 254 players got drafted to the NFL last year, and Watty was rated 295th in the composite. The natural equilibrium would expect him to go undrafted. Now consider that the vast majority of the players drafted were not 4 and 5 star recruits either (15/32 first round picks in 2019 were 3 stars or lower).

    The elite recruiting prospects are hard to get for a reason, they pan out much more often than lesser recruited guys. It's important we get as many if them as possible. But the difference between being USC/Tennessee/Texas and actually competing for a Natty is how well you evaluate and develop the back half of your recruiting class with guys that not every school wants.
  • DerekJohnsonDerekJohnson Administrator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 63,539 Founders Club

    TOP DAWGS
    A look the Huskies’ best recruiting classes of the past 30 years:

    1988: Best of the best: Steve Emtman, Lincoln Kennedy, Mark Brunell, Mario Bailey, Dave Hoffmann and Jay Barry, to name a few, helped pave the way for the most dominant period in program history.


    That's a great class

    Hoff is going to get you

    Bearswiin told me it was nothing special
  • GreenRiverGatorzGreenRiverGatorz Member Posts: 10,165

    NEsnake12 said:


    An example is Wattenberg. He was a low four star recruit that if he played to his exact ranking would be a 7th round pick. To almost everyone, he’s a disappointment, but he’s really close to the level he was rated as on 247, but we see the four stars and expect more.

    Love this take. 254 players got drafted to the NFL last year, and Watty was rated 295th in the composite. The natural equilibrium would expect him to go undrafted. Now consider that the vast majority of the players drafted were not 4 and 5 star recruits either (15/32 first round picks in 2019 were 3 stars or lower).

    The elite recruiting prospects are hard to get for a reason, they pan out much more often than lesser recruited guys. It's important we get as many if them as possible. But the difference between being USC/Tennessee/Texas and actually competing for a Natty is how well you evaluate and develop the back half of your recruiting class with guys that not every school wants.

    This argument can drive me bat shit crazy at times because people will say "STARS DON'T MATTER!!! STAN EMPO!!!!" The reason the vast majority of drafted players are 3 star or less is because there are a shit ton more of them.
    I think @NEsnake12 knows that, given the context of the rest of his post. The larger point is that plenty of 4 and 5 star guys still bust, highlighting the need to stockpile as many of them as you can to outlast the law of averages.
  • RoadDawg55RoadDawg55 Member Posts: 30,123

    NEsnake12 said:


    An example is Wattenberg. He was a low four star recruit that if he played to his exact ranking would be a 7th round pick. To almost everyone, he’s a disappointment, but he’s really close to the level he was rated as on 247, but we see the four stars and expect more.

    Love this take. 254 players got drafted to the NFL last year, and Watty was rated 295th in the composite. The natural equilibrium would expect him to go undrafted. Now consider that the vast majority of the players drafted were not 4 and 5 star recruits either (15/32 first round picks in 2019 were 3 stars or lower).

    The elite recruiting prospects are hard to get for a reason, they pan out much more often than lesser recruited guys. It's important we get as many if them as possible. But the difference between being USC/Tennessee/Texas and actually competing for a Natty is how well you evaluate and develop the back half of your recruiting class with guys that not every school wants.

    This argument can drive me bat shit crazy at times because people will say "STARS DON'T MATTER!!! STAN EMPO!!!!" The reason the vast majority of drafted players are 3 star or less is because there are a shit ton more of them.
    True, but I do think politics and player’s initial rankings play a large role and their ratings are inflated because of it. Guys do drop in the rankings, but if they were initially ranked as a 5 star as a sophomore, there will be a 4 star at minimum when the final rankings come out.

    Certain positions, mainly WR are so inflated. A ton of it has to do with 7 on 7 and their stats too. If the national guys develop a relationship with a kid, I think that can play a role in inflated rankings as well.

    If you have a shitty high school QB, it’s hard to really produce as a WR. Spiker might turn out to be a good player, but he was an obvious guy that was ranked too high because his team threw the ball a ton and he had a D-1 QB throwing to him.

    The story about Whittingham flipping out over Sidney Jones decommiting made me think that he must be pretty fucking good despite a low ranking.

    If schools are dropping a guy, it probably is a sign that he’s overrated, but since he’s still ranked a 4 star, the team that ends up getting him gets excited. Oregon got the kid from Alabama that was dropped by them and they rose a couple spots in the rankings when Oregon signed him because he was still ranked fairly high. He very likely sucks.

    Get elite guys and evaluate well to your scheme and fit after that. Pete did very good at that with his 2014 class. So many of those guys were lowly rated but ended up being great players. He was obviously amazing at it when he was at Boise. I wish he wouldn’t have changed except for get a couple elite guys here and there since he was at UW and now could.
Sign In or Register to comment.