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. -
Why do you hate offseason natty's?RoadDawg55 said: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. -
I am thrilled that someone put in the time and effort to make this graph, but I must admit that there is some bias to this information.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:Posted this a few weeks ago, but this thread seems like it needs it again as it shows what RoadDawg is saying...
Over the years, Scout has drastically inflated their star system, either as a means to appraise the teen boys they stalk or to drive interest in their site because "oh hey, look, this kid is a 3*, that's awesome".
If you look back during the Gilby and Ty years, Scout ranked the top 50 as 5*s, top 300 as 4*s and top 1000 as 3*s. Now, you have a fuckton more 4*s and 3*s. For example, Isaiah Renfro, our 4* S/WR recruit, isn't listed in the top 300 for Scout. The last ranked S in the Top 300 is the #17 S. Renfro is #25. Under their old system, he'd be a 3*. But now, because Scout wants us to be excited for the kid, he's a 4*.
What's even worse are all the 3*s now. The top 1700 HS kids are ranked 3* by Scout. That's right. 1700 3*s. What the actual fuck. They inflated the ranks to add 700 new 3*s. The used to be only 700 3*s, now there's almost 1400 of them in Scout's database. How is the 207th best WR in the country a 3*? Or the 159th best DE? Or 135th best OLB? If you take these numbers and go back to Sark's 2010 class, all those 2*s would be 3*s now. Yes, Atoe would've been a 3* if he were a teen boy this year.
Again, this goes back to the tired argument that stars are fucking useless and the best way to gauge ability is to look at what the team needs and how the kid fits into the system. Or look at BCS offers, who knows.
Either way, Petersen knows what he's doing and the most important thing is that he has a staff that knows his system and knows what type of kids to recruit. Stars can go fuck themselves. Unless we get a 5* recruit. Then that'd be AWESOME! -
Who could forget all of Ty's Puget Sound All-stars.
-
The rankings matter at the very top of the scale. Prior to FSU's NC, their classes were ranked #8, #6, #1 & #2 respectively. Sorry, those are ESPN numbers. And I am pretty sure you would see the same thing for over 98.3% of the last 15 national champs. Of course you need a good coach, but even a guy like Chizik can find a nut with high caliber players.
But after that there is no way to tell the difference between a ranked #67 and #367, and this is where the coaching aspect comes into play. And I believe Scout still uses class size in their metrics, which hurts a team like Mich St. who has taken some smaller classes in recent years, but still had over a 3* average.
I will trust Coach Pete over some fat guy who wears overalls at half-mast. -
Well the "talent evaluators" (tbs) also basically base their ranking on offers. If a kid gets interest from Alabama he'll get his stars real quick.RoadDawg55 said: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.
If the tbs crew actually knew anything about evaluating teen boys, you'd frequently see 5 star kids with no big time offers. But no, they just asks kids who's offered them and rank accordingly.
And GOD FORBID a kid spit on the whole farce and skip some of their stupid camps (hi jake browning!), because the lemon party trio will eat you alive. -
It's probably more like 81%IrishDawg22 said:The rankings matter at the very top of the scale. Prior to FSU's NC, their classes were ranked #8, #6, #1 & #2 respectively. Sorry, those are ESPN numbers. And I am pretty sure you would see the same thing for over 98.3% of the last 15 national champs. Of course you need a good coach, but even a guy like Chizik can find a nut with high caliber players.
But after that there is no way to tell the difference between a ranked #67 and #367, and this is where the coaching aspect comes into play. And I believe Scout still uses class size in their metrics, which hurts a team like Mich St. who has taken some smaller classes in recent years, but still had over a 3* average.
I will trust Coach Pete over some fat guy who wears overalls at half-mast. -
Petersen is going to recruit better than Sark or Neuheisel both in terms of class balance, fit or whatever the fuck you call it, AND star rating. Cook it. His first class, a transition one that started very late, was rated higher than two of Sark's (avg rating is the only fucking recruiting stat that should even be considered).
Sark got some real nice players to UW, but his recruiting was mostly sizzle that mostly died off before Christmas every year. Only the dumbfuckiest of doogs (Ecktard for one) were impressed by "being in on" the big time targets that were never coming to UW. Sark and his buddies (I think Peter Sirmon was the main source of this) recognized the influence that web sites can have on the doog fanbase. They fed "info" to Grinolds and Ecklund to keep the sizzle going as far into the process as they could every year. The signatures never lived up to the buzz but doogs are dumb enough to forget about all of failures late in the winter and on signing day. -
Back in the day it was a kid's offer sheet. This was from the mouth of a prominent husky coach. Now offers go out like junk mail. Means very little. The media has little clue If an offer is "committable". What a joke recruiting has become. It was fun to follow in the early Heckman days and before. Dudes with dawgman.com are speculating more than ever. Total crock o shitwhatshouldicareabout said:
I am thrilled that someone put in the time and effort to make this graph, but I must admit that there is some bias to this information.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:Posted this a few weeks ago, but this thread seems like it needs it againif as it shows what RoadDawg is saying...
Over the years, Scout has drastically inflated their star system, either as a means to appraise the teen boys they stalk or to drive interest in their site because "oh hey, look, this kid is a 3*, that's awesome".
If you look back during the Gilby and Ty years, Scout ranked the top 50 as 5*s, top 300 as 4*s and top 1000 as 3*s. Now, you have a fuckton more 4*s and 3*s. For example, Isaiah Renfro, our 4* S/WR recruit, isn't listed in the top 300 for Scout. The last ranked S in the Top 300 is the #17 S. Renfro is #25. Under their old system, he'd be a 3*. But now, because Scout wants us to be excited for the kid, he's a 4*.
What's even worse are all the 3*s now. The top 1700 HS kids are ranked 3* by Scout. That's right. 1700 3*s. What the actual fuck. They inflated the ranks to add 700 new 3*s. The used to be only 700 3*s, now there's almost 1400 of them in Scout's database. How is the 207th best WR in the country a 3*? Or the 159th best DE? Or 135th best OLB? If you take these numbers and go back to Sark's 2010 class, all those 2*s would be 3*s now. Yes, Atoe would've been a 3* if he were a teen boy this year.
Again, this goes back to the tired argument that stars are fucking useless and the best way to gauge ability is to look at what the team needs and how the kid fits into the system. Or look at BCS offers, who knows.
Either way, Petersen knows what he's doing and the most important thing is that he has a staff that knows his system and knows what type of kids to recruit. Stars can go fuck themselves. Unless we get a 5* recruit. Then that'd be AWESOME! -
I'm with Irish on this one. At the very top it fucking matters. There are always a few guys ahead of the pack that you stand back and say, "holy fuck, he's a game changer".
After that, it's a fucking crap shoot of 6'4 self timed 4.4 40 4 stars that will either flourish or fail depending on coaching.
Development is king, but I still get excited about game changers. -
This is one of the best poasts ever regarding Teen Boy Stalking. Grinolds and Ektard were so horny over the fact that Sark, Sirmon, and other coaches on staff would feed them info that they actually bought the horseshit they were being fed. You damn near hear Ektard's pussy getting wet when he would type out one of those "being in on big recruit x" poasts. He was just excited that he got to talk to a real, live college football coach finally. It's the same as when little Bobby gets an autograph from his favorite baseball player and runs home to tell his mommy all about it. Instead of mommy, Ektard gets on his laptop and types out a Doog-a-rific poast.chuck said:Petersen is going to recruit better than Sark or Neuheisel both in terms of class balance, fit or whatever the fuck you call it, AND star rating. Cook it. His first class, a transition one that started very late, was rated higher than two of Sark's (avg rating is the only fucking recruiting stat that should even be considered).
Sark got some real nice players to UW, but his recruiting was mostly sizzle that mostly died off before Christmas every year. Only the dumbfuckiest of doogs (Ecktard for one) were impressed by "being in on" the big time targets that were never coming to UW. Sark and his buddies (I think Peter Sirmon was the main source of this) recognized the influence that web sites can have on the doog fanbase. They fed "info" to Grinolds and Ecklund to keep the sizzle going as far into the process as they could every year. The signatures never lived up to the buzz but doogs are dumb enough to forget about all of failures late in the winter and on signing day. -
Either recruits will come to UW, or they won't. Peterman may or may not develop the talent. Either way it will be interesting.
-
I remember after the coaches left and Eklund was all bent out of shape and said "I will post soon what this class would have looked like if Sark had stayed".... He went on to explain that Sirmon, the recruiting coordinator, TOLD HIM that they were going to get all these names that he went on to list in the post (I think Biggus may have chronicled this post). So basically he confirmed that a great deal of his info came directly from coaches, in this case Sirmon.
Now, as the RECRUITING COORDINATOR, whose job do you think it is to help create buzz with recruiting. What better way to leak it to a website and get your fans, and potentially recruits that read the site excited about the sizzle that is about to hit full force at the UW. Doogman was used for years by Sark and his staff and they had no idea that it was happening. -
some decent chit:
some people were suggesting that it was a good sign that local teen boy and QB Eason visited practice yesterday. Of course Kim had to jump into the thread and retort that it was just as likely that Eason only went to practice because his friends were going and they were stopping at Dick's (the restaurant)
Bob Rondeau once told me "Some people are just miserable and want to bring everyone else down with their negativity"
-Kim Grinolds: 2009-2013 -
And Eklund is Ektard because of this type of stuff. He was still buying bullshit from Sark's staff after 5 years? What a maroon. Remember Kim saying he was hearing rumors that will shake up west coast recruiting? He was trying to sell De'Anthony Thomas was going to UW along with a bunch of other 4 and 5 stars as a package deal. Remember the big circle jerk at the U Village Ram? St. Tosh Day? Kim was trying to allude to how much he had to do with it? Whatevs. How many of those kids ended up at UW...3 out of the 7? How about Tyner and his academis coming to UW? What about the bumper class of O linemen in 2012? That was supposed to be a layup according to those fucks. The top 5 or 6 in state kids gave UW and Sark the middle finger and LOUDLY.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:I remember after the coaches left and Eklund was all bent out of shape and said "I will post soon what this class would have looked like if Sark had stayed".... He went on to explain that Sirmon, the recruiting coordinator, TOLD HIM that they were going to get all these names that he went on to list in the post (I think Biggus may have chronicled this post). So basically he confirmed that a great deal of his info came directly from coaches, in this case Sirmon.
So then Ektard has the temerity to try and sell how great Sark's 2014 class was going be?
WHAT THE FUCK EVER!
Those cocksuckers have zero credibility to post shit like that even if they do have a coach giving them off the record info. It was a total fuckjob and any fan who didn't see they were being scammed by Doogman and Sark after 2012 was too stupid to figure out what was going on or they were compromised by their bullshit connections as well (AANDY, Bill fucking Fleenor, ladyhawks, etc). -
In this thread:
A ton of tl;dr poasts telling us water is wet. -
when I see "temerity" and "fuck" being used in the same poast, then I know we've got the smartest fans in the country.
-
Funny how we get this post when recruiting is in the toilet. 8th in conference bad. I guarantee u wouldnt be posting this if Huskies were top 20. Guess we have new President of PAK.
-
It's August. You aren't any good at trolling.beelzebub said:Funny how we get this post when recruiting is in the toilet. 8th in conference bad. I guarantee u wouldnt be posting this if Huskies were top 20. Guess we have new President of PAK.
-
Wow.beelzebub said:Funny how we get this post when recruiting is in the toilet. 8th in conference bad. I guarantee u wouldnt be posting this if Huskies were top 20. Guess we have new President of PAK.
You're both new and fucking stupid. What a combo.
Abundance. -
I was mostly just disappointed to see how on his meds PL_SS is in this thread. Who the fuck knew he could use symbiotic correctly?
