Peterman and Recruiting
On the other end, Miami, Tennessee, USC, Michigan, and North Carolina are almost always in the top 25 and haven't won shit recently. Tennessee has been especially bad for where their recruits have been ranked. The more I have looked at it, the more I come to the realization that these rankings are mostly shit. What the rankings really prove is that coaching is the only thing that matters. Auburn under Chizik was going in the toilet despite highly ranked classes. Malzahn comes on board and they are playing in the title game.
Fuck the doogs that loved the sizzle of coming in third place for 5 star recruits. Kim and his lemoniers know their site is based on recruiting so they have to act like the rankings are so important. They're not and it takes no skill to rank Alabama, LSU, Ohio State, Florida State, and Texas' classes at the top. Those schools always get great talent. I know that Peterman is putting a lot more effort in the bottom half of his classes than Sark did. Not to mention, the balance Peterman will have each class. For the dumb fucks who say Peterman won't take edgy or academically risky players, I present Vita Vea. I think a number of our lower ranked recruits that Peterman signed last year will turn out to be good players.
Comments
-
If he wins I'm not worried. Sark's 4 stars were shitty a good chunk of the time too. I couldn't care less about the stars and rankings and I bet Peter north and his staff dont either.
Again why is it so exciting to sign a bunch of 4 star recruits now just to have 50% of them switch by signing day? I liked Petersen in the interview where he said they aren't going to put time into kids who aren't interested. -
Posted this a few weeks ago, but this thread seems like it needs it again as it shows what RoadDawg is saying...
-
It's funny because Willingham's part of the chart is in black.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:Posted this a few weeks ago, but this thread seems like it needs it again as it shows what RoadDawg is saying...
-
I did that on purpose.... Also notice Seven's section is pink
-
Rick is gold and Peterman is purple.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:I did that on purpose.... Also notice Seven's section is pink
Well played sir.
But why's Gilby red? Like the meat he eats?
-
Recruiting talk in August...LOVE IT!!1!
-
CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:
I did that on purpose.... Also notice Seven's section is pink
Wonder what was happening during 2009 and 2012 when he was averaging around 2 in the pink? -
Yea, the Rick and Peterman sections are purple and gold on purpose. I did red for Gilby because I consider it a bloody year.dnc said:
Rick is gold and Peterman is purple.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:I did that on purpose.... Also notice Seven's section is pink
Well played sir.
But why's Gilby red? Like the meat he eats? -
Sheesh Roadie this might as well be an entrance - song thread. This position of yours has been beat to death, we understand the myths and the realities of the star rankings. If college football fans aren't smart enough to know it's not the X's and O's but the Jimmie ' s and Joe's (how's that for cliché and total fucking bullshit ). This adage is only partly accurate, along with the star system.RoadDawg55 said:I think we would all prefer UW to field a team of all 4 and 5 star recruits. That said, the hoopla about his recruiting is fucking stupid. Peterman is likely going to sign top 25 classes. Even Ty did that at times. There are outliers to the recruiting rankings and Peterman has proven t developer. There are plenty of other examples. Mark Dantonio has his teams frequently at or near the top of the Big 10 despite not having a single class ranked in the top 25 by Scout from 2009-2013. He still won 11+ games three times during those years. I checked all the way back to 2006 and Wisconsin also did not have a single top 25 class. Somehow they have still gone to three Rose Bowls since 2010. Bill Snyder at Kansas State is another example. He has always gotten lowly ranked guys and JC recruits yet been a winner.
On the other end, Miami, Tennessee, USC, Michigan, and North Carolina are almost always in the top 25 and haven't won shit recently. Tennessee has been especially bad for where their recruits have been ranked. The more I have looked at it, the more I come to the realization that these rankings are mostly shit. What the rankings really prove is that coaching is the only thing that matters. Auburn under Chizik was going in the toilet despite highly ranked classes. Malzahn comes on board and they are playing in the title game.
Fuck the doogs that loved the sizzle of coming in third place for 5 star recruits. Kim and his lemoniers know their site is based on recruiting so they have to act like the rankings are so important. They're not and it takes no skill to rank Alabama, LSU, Ohio State, Florida State, and Texas' classes at the top. Those schools always get great talent. I know that Peterman is putting a lot more effort in the bottom half of his classes than Sark did. Not to mention, the balance Peterman will have each class. For the dumb fucks who say Peterman won't take edgy or academically risky players, I present Vita Vea. I think a number of our lower ranked recruits that Peterman signed last year will turn out to be good players.
The head coach and staff are much more important than a a roster of '5-stars'. But it's a fucking symbiotic relationship. Sark proved that. Just ditch the stars and let Peetamus recruit his kids, for his system and shut the fuck up. If he recruits a 2 - star offensive linemen over a 4 - star WR, he's doing it for a reason. If you want cliché bullshit I'll give you the best one of all time. "DJ recruited the state of Washington 1st, then plucked some skill from Cali and beef from hawaii, the northwest and Cali too". Petersen will adopt the exact same philosophy. So the gays from dawgman.com on sports radio am 950 kjr, can stuff their heads up their cunts.
I am so sick of this butt fucking argument. One only need look at 1 game under Chris Petersen to prove the star system is mostly but not entirely bogus. Pete has proven several times in games vs the Oklahoma's, VT ' S , and Oregon ' s of the world that he can play with the big boys, even though most say "yeah, but could he do it week in and week out"?
When Pete completely manhandled Georgia in every fucking facet of the game. Boise st. Would have beat them 10 out of 10 times. Look at where Georgia finished that year. Tells me Boise St. Could have beat most teams in the SEC. That's how dominant BoiseSt. Was in that game. So fuck you and your stars Eklund, kimmy, fetters, scout and espn -
I realize it has already been beaten around quite a bit already. I had some free time today and was looking at these rankings. That's all the post was.
Star system defenders (at one point I was one) always throw out the adage that the best teams have the best recruiting rankings, but it's more complex than that. Some do, some don't. A great coach is much more inportant than any recruiting ranking (water is wet). These idiots on doogman are worried whether we will be ranked 15th or 25th in recruiting rankings when it doesn't matter at all.
