Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Peterman and Recruiting
Comments
-
What are recruiting rankings anyway? Are they representative of how dominant a kid is as an 18 year old? How do those rankings help said player when they are a 21 or 22 year old senior?
The only thing that really matters in recruiting at least IMO is whether or not the prospect has the tools necessary to turn into a player. For football, that starts with does he have the height/weight/speed capabilities for the position that you're recruiting him for. But for everything else, it's trying to figure out how much growth there is over the next 3-5 years.
An OL/DL prospect will be highly dependent upon the quality of effort that they put into the weight room with the training staff as well as the quality of their OL/DL coach. A QB can get by on physical skills to a certain degree at the HS level. At the college level do they have the ability to lead players, read defenses, and become a student of the game on top of the physical skills. For RBs, this may be the position where just being a freak athlete can get you to where you want to be ... however, RBs need to learn to forego the big play for making the consistent play (i.e. tucking it up in for 3-5 yards to keep the chains moving versus trying to get the big play every carry), pass protection, and becoming a receiving option. WR/TE need to be able to understand the nuances of being consistent in their route running while having the discipline to understanding that a key block is as valuable as a catch. A LB prospect needs to have the ability to understand the running game as well as the passing game. And DBs not only have to have the physical gifts, but they need to have the mental strength to be able to understand what the offense is doing well before it happens so that they can read and react instead of just reacting.
That entire previous paragraph you don't learn about a kid on the HS football field. You learn that by talking to them. You learn that by talking to their coaches. You learn that by studying what they do not only on the field, but more importantly off the field.
The thing about Sark and why I'm personally so happy he's at USC is because while he might be able to get talented 18 year olds into his program, he's shown an inability to get those kids to show significant growth by the time they are 21 or 22 at which point they get beat by players/teams that are able to develop. When USC is the most dangerous it is when they have a coach in place that can not only identify the talented players, but also find the players that he can develop into even better players into the future.
The reason Alabama is so good right now is that for the first time probably since Bear Bryant have they been able to identify a coach that has the ability to get the best of the best out of HS but then to also make them that much better during their time in college.
The TL,DR version is simply that development matters. -
Peterman care about getting the top kids as much as the next coach. Where he differs is in how he approaches them, they have to really want to be a part of his system before he devotes much time or effort in getting after them. He doesn't get down on his knees and offer marriage or a blowjob to win them over. Next and the reason he wins is the attention to detail, focus, the plan, the system, all what we have witnessed in word and deed these past few months. I'm sure hoe would love to trot out all 5 star kids, but he wins on details not potential.
-
Voted up for this. It should be a requirement for all our long-winded members. Devs? Mods?Tequilla said:
The TL,DR version is simply that development matters. -
Because that's how Petersen was successful at Boise, leading the fucking Sizzle rankings.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 must work for a TBS website; you're fucking pathetic. -
This CuogarGold guy gets it
-
But he can't even spell his own name!!1!RaceBannon said:This CuogarGold guy gets it
-
Petersen better learn to recruit for long haul he doesnt have luxury of gearing up for 1 game a year anymore. Mountain west recruits are gonna get him same results as Utah stepping into PAC 12. Too bad u chapstick ass kissers cant see that
-
-
True but there are HH posters suffering under the illusion of Sark's high power TBS and excusing Petersen for not quite matching. I'm saying he'll do "better".TierbsHsotBoobs said:In this thread:
A ton of tl;dr poasts telling us water is wet.
You just DGAF about TBS.
List the Mtn west recruits dumb dumb. I could make a very long list of ones recruited by Sark and his crack team of TBS sizzlers.beelzebub said:Petersen better learn to recruit for long haul he doesnt have luxury of gearing up for 1 game a year anymore. Mountain west recruits are gonna get him same results as Utah stepping into PAC 12. Too bad u chapstick ass kissers cant see that
Petersen's average recruit rating is as good as or better than Sark's so far. It's the only rating that matters if you give a fuck about ratings.
-
Looks to me like you should lurk for a while and get used to how things go around here. You probably ought to PM IrishDawg22, because he has this place dialed in.beelzebub said:Petersen better learn to recruit for long haul he doesnt have luxury of gearing up for 1 game a year anymore. Mountain west recruits are gonna get him same results as Utah stepping into PAC 12. Too bad u chapstick ass kissers cant see that
-
Dude if you really are a coog fan you just make me fucking ashamed.beelzebub said:Petersen better learn to recruit for long haul he doesnt have luxury of gearing up for 1 game a year anymore. Mountain west recruits are gonna get him same results as Utah stepping into PAC 12. Too bad u chapstick ass kissers cant see that
And if your just a TBS then thanks for showing me you don't watch the games. I lived in Boise for 3 years and went to roughly half the games. I got drunk the night they hired him, because it basically meant no more embarrassing UW in dreckfest apple cups.
Just get the fuck out of here. -
This might be Pup's most coherent and best football take ever.puppylove_sugarsteel said:
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! -
Hitting tough time nacho?? Looking for lil pick me up by bumping pumpy stuffCFetters_Nacho_Lover said:
This might be Pup's most coherent and best football take ever.puppylove_sugarsteel said:
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! -
Huh?FireCohen said:
Hitting tough time nacho?? Looking for lil pick me up by bumping pumpy stuffCFetters_Nacho_Lover said:
This might be Pup's most coherent and best football take ever.puppylove_sugarsteel said:
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 only remember (a very small portion of) the tims he was wrongCFetters_Nacho_Lover said:
This might be Pup's most coherent and best football take ever.puppylove_sugarsteel said:
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!
