Why We Are Average and the Importance of Attrition
Why We Are Average and the Importance of Attrition
CokeGreaterThanPepsi analyzes attrition rates this week and makes a startling conclusion... Things were worse under Sark than we realized.
Comments
-
So what your saying is, the ceiling on Oregon dropouts > chumps Sark chased at the witching hour before LOI day?
I don't count that last minute crap Sark pulled as "recruiting" when it was clear he whiffed on big names and needed warm bodies.
The numbers on Oregon are interesting. Either their picker is wrong or they have a quick trigger finger. Or abundance? -
"I sat there with my wife trying..."
pics? -
Or you could point to the fact that over the last 4 years the UW team was 5-4 in conference. They beat the bad teams (usually) and lost to the good teams. During that same time their recruiting was between 4th and 6th in the conference. Average coaching +Average recruiting = Average play. Petersen inherited an average team (above average defense, below average offense).
-
A few thoughts/research projects for the Pepsi team:
1) I'd recommend changing "no" in the charts to something that more clearly resembles that the player left the program before completing eligibility.
2) It would be interesting to see the results for the entire conference, but I think in particular it will be interesting to see the impact against Oregon (already completed), Stanford, and Oregon State. Oregon and Stanford obviously because they are the top programs in the conference. Oregon State because while they at times lack in talent, they are almost always experienced, well coached squads that require you to beat them instead of beating themselves.
3) I'm a little torn on how to treat JUCO players in the list
4) I'd also like to see listings that compare how many true freshman are playing immediately
5) I'd also recommend breaking out those that leave the program early because they enter the NFL draft (which means that you got at least 3 years in the program with clear contributions to the roster) versus players that left on their own (which generally means that they didn't provide contributions to the program) ... there's a HUGE difference in these kinds of metrics. I'd argue that the latter is much more closely aligned with the "exhaustion of eligibility" measure. In the end, what you're trying to analyze is the % of players that were just flat out recruiting misses that provided limited, if any, contributions to a program. -
All good poonts Tequilla, to your first poont I should have changed it to "Left Early" or something, that's my bad!
-
Tequilla said:
A few thoughts/research projects for the Pepsi team:
1) I'd recommend changing "no" in the charts to something that more clearly resembles that the player left the program before completing eligibility.
2) It would be interesting to see the results for the entire conference, but I think in particular it will be interesting to see the impact against Oregon (already completed), Stanford, and Oregon State. Oregon and Stanford obviously because they are the top programs in the conference. Oregon State because while they at times lack in talent, they are almost always experienced, well coached squads that require you to beat them instead of beating themselves.
3) I'm a little torn on how to treat JUCO players in the list
4) I'd also like to see listings that compare how many true freshman are playing immediately
5) I'd also recommend breaking out those that leave the program early because they enter the NFL draft (which means that you got at least 3 years in the program with clear contributions to the roster) versus players that left on their own (which generally means that they didn't provide contributions to the program) ... there's a HUGE difference in these kinds of metrics. I'd argue that the latter is much more closely aligned with the "exhaustion of eligibility" measure. In the end, what you're trying to analyze is the % of players that were just flat out recruiting misses that provided limited, if any, contributions to a program.
Recruiting players for your system >>>> Recruiting players because of their stars
Case closed -
Good stuff. The attrition and lack of redshirts has hurt the program. Sample, Ducre, Kevin Smith, Pio V, etc. Those guys would really help. That is one thing that excites me about Petersen. I don't think Sark cared about the bottom half of his recruiting classes. Petersen does and he really delves into their character, which hopefully leads to less attrition.
I do disagree with some of the article. This team has talent, but it is lacking it at the most important spot, QB. The RB's are pretty bad too. Talent was only one of the reasons we got plungered by Oregon. As I have stated many times, less talented teams than UW's played tough against Oregon. Arizona even beat them. Jake Fisher returning obviously has been a major boon. However, he was not a 25 point difference.
Nobody expected a great team, just a good one that wins 10 games. Let's not move the goalposts now. The fact that we have flaws and youth/talent deficiencies in places shouldn't be news. It was known all along. 10 wins is still feasible and I think there is enough talent to do that. It won't be easy, but if we don't, I certainly won't blame it all on a lack of talent.
5 stars is a good start. If you asked Greenblood or another logical Duck fan, I doubt they would name more than 5 guys who are stars. I suppose who those star players are also matters. I would trade 3 of our stars for Mariota. I don't blame it all on Petersen, but change can be tough. Some guys have taken to it and gotten better. Danny Shelton, Shaq, and John Ross are examples. Others guys have not. Timu and Feeney haven't gotten any better, and are possibly worse. The OL looks no better than it did last year. Up to this point, I can't say we are over achieving with the talent we have, and we are possibly under achieving. There is still a lot of season left though. -
Good chit. One would have to think Stanford (two-time defending Pac-12 champ) has had even lower attrition rates.
Off the top of my head, Sloppy Steve's attrition rates and poor recruiting along the OL is the most glaring. Porter was good but had to retire due to shoulder problems but Kohler was overrated and then retired. The 2011 class only had Dexter Charles and Siosifa Tugunga (MAY start next year as a RS-SR). The 2012 class has already lost Nathan Dean and Taylor Hindy and Sarkisian mismanaged Brostek by playing him as a true frosh. The 2013 class hasn't had any attrition which is important to building better depth but Jamie Bryant has already had to retire (either was going to be an OL or DT).
After coming in late for the 2014 class, at least Petersen and Strausser held onto Matt James, flipped Sosebee from BSU, got another OL in John Turner, and then took a grayshirt flier on a former B-ball player Burleson after SDSU convinced him to switch to football).
I'm happy with our 2015 OL class. One 4 star All-American wanted by a bunch of programs (Henry Roberts), another 4 star (or high 3 star) offered by USC, Oregon, ASU, and UCLA in Trey Adams, and one 3 star OT with a couple of other Pac-12 offers (Jared Hilbers).
The previous staff also mismanaged the secondary. They played 2011 recruit James Sample as a true frosh and he hurt his shoulder (like Kevin King) and then he went to the JC route before landing at Louisville (6-2 this year) and is currently their second leading tackler. The 2012 class had 2 misses Darien Washington (don't know where he is) and Cleveland Wallace (San Jose State) and Petersen had to kick 2013 recruit Patrick Enewally off the team in the spring.
I also wish the previous staff had recruited a speed back in 2012 or 2013. 2 star Erich Wilson didn't pan out in the 2012 class and while I like Coleman from the 2013 class, he doesn't have breakaway speed. At least Petersen nabbed speedy Jomon Dotson but he entered the program at 164 lbs so he obviously needs to redshirt.
-
I still think this team can win 9 or 10 games if all goes right. But I also don't think there is much talent on this team.
-
Agreed, but Oregon also has a lot of talent that only had 3 stars during recruitment. This includes guys like Mariota, Kiko Alonso, Jake Fisher, Grasu, Joe Walker (2 stars), Terrence Mitchell, Boyett, Barner, Patterson, Brian Jackson, Mahle, Paulson, and Matthews. Oregon has done a nice job of getting guys that fit their system, vs how pretty their star quantity looks.RoadDawg55 said:Good stuff. The attrition and lack of redshirts has hurt the program. Sample, Ducre, Kevin Smith, Pio V, etc. Those guys would really help. That is one thing that excites me about Petersen. I don't think Sark cared about the bottom half of his recruiting classes. Petersen does and he really delves into their character, which hopefully leads to less attrition.
I do disagree with some of the article. This team has talent, but it is lacking it at the most important spot, QB. The RB's are pretty bad too. Talent was only one of the reasons we got plungered by Oregon. As I have stated many times, less talented teams than UW's played tough against Oregon. Arizona even beat them. Jake Fisher returning obviously has been a major boon. However, he was not a 25 point difference.
Nobody expected a great team, just a good one that wins 10 games. Let's not move the goalposts now. The fact that we have flaws and youth/talent deficiencies in places shouldn't be news. It was known all along. 10 wins is still feasible and I think there is enough talent to do that. It won't be easy, but if we don't, I certainly won't blame it all on a lack of talent.
5 stars is a good start. If you asked Greenblood or another logical Duck fan, I doubt they would name more than 5 guys who are stars. I suppose who those star players are also matters. I would trade 3 of our stars for Mariota. I don't blame it all on Petersen, but change can be tough. Some guys have taken to it and gotten better. Danny Shelton, Shaq, and John Ross are examples. Others guys have not. Timu and Feeney haven't gotten any better, and are possibly worse. The OL looks no better than it did last year. Up to this point, I can't say we are over achieving with the talent we have, and we are possibly under achieving. There is still a lot of season left though. -
Yeah we could still win 9 games if we go 1-2 vs. ASU, Arizona, and UCLA while beating Colorado, Oregon State, and WSU which would put us at 5-4 in-conference.
The OL and QB play so far makes it hard to see a 5-1 in-conference finish. Hope I'm wrong though.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:I still think this team can win 9 or 10 games if all goes right. But I also don't think there is much talent on this team.
-
We should expect to win games against Colorado and Washington State.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:I still think this team can win 9 or 10 games if all goes right. But I also don't think there is much talent on this team.
We have 4 toss up games remaining with ASU, UCLA, Arizona, and Oregon State - 3 of which are at home.
We may be looking at another 5-4 season in conference ...
There's enough talent on this roster that if we got reasonable QB play I think we could be expecting to see 6-3 or 7-2 in conference this year. Probably don't lose to Stanford if we had it.
If there has been a massive disappointment to me this year, and an area where I tremendously missed, it was thinking that we'd get more out of Miles than we are. He's just not an upper end PAC QB in my mind. -
Oregon State at home should not be a toss-up. You lose that game your head coach isn't the right guy.Tequilla said:
We should expect to win games against Colorado and Washington State.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:I still think this team can win 9 or 10 games if all goes right. But I also don't think there is much talent on this team.
We have 4 toss up games remaining with ASU, UCLA, Arizona, and Oregon State - 3 of which are at home.
We may be looking at another 5-4 season in conference ...
There's enough talent on this roster that if we got reasonable QB play I think we could be expecting to see 6-3 or 7-2 in conference this year. Probably don't lose to Stanford if we had it.
If there has been a massive disappointment to me this year, and an area where I tremendously missed, it was thinking that we'd get more out of Miles than we are. He's just not an upper end PAC QB in my mind. -
It would be interesting to check attrition for Boise State while Petersen was there. I bet Stanford is low but I'd best Boise St is even lower.
-
I'm sorry - have you not paid attention to our QB play in 3 conference games so far this year?greenblood said:
Oregon State at home should not be a toss-up. You lose that game your head coach isn't the right guy.Tequilla said:
We should expect to win games against Colorado and Washington State.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:I still think this team can win 9 or 10 games if all goes right. But I also don't think there is much talent on this team.
We have 4 toss up games remaining with ASU, UCLA, Arizona, and Oregon State - 3 of which are at home.
We may be looking at another 5-4 season in conference ...
There's enough talent on this roster that if we got reasonable QB play I think we could be expecting to see 6-3 or 7-2 in conference this year. Probably don't lose to Stanford if we had it.
If there has been a massive disappointment to me this year, and an area where I tremendously missed, it was thinking that we'd get more out of Miles than we are. He's just not an upper end PAC QB in my mind.
Until we are able to get QB play that I consider to be PAC quality, there's really not a single game that I look at on the schedule and feel tremendously comfortable about at this point. -
Just did Stanford. 2010 they lost 9 guys already, 2011 no one has left, 2012 2 have left, 2013 no one has left...
-
I think you are winning 3 of those 4 "toss-up" games. The single loss coming to ASU. You'll go 6-3 in Conference 10-3 overall. A bowl win would put you at 11 wins. I think that is entirely possible, especially since you get to skip USC and Utah this year, which is a big help.
-
WSU's numbers are INSANE.
2010: Signed 26, 12 gone already.
2011: Signed 29, 18 gone already.
2012: Signed 27, 13 gone already.
2013: Signed 28, 7 gone already.
Holy Shit, Cuogs -
We are going to do that after PAC12, Chest. Eventually we are going to go all the way back to 2007 I think, maybe earlier.HeretoBeatmyChest said:It would be interesting to check attrition for Boise State while Petersen was there. I bet Stanford is low but I'd best Boise St is even lower.
-
Just off the top of my head: Mariotta, Freeman, Ifo, Grassu, Armstead... IDK. Don't follow the Ducks closely, but I think those are all guys that are pretty talented right there, I also like their TE Brown. Ducks would know better though.RoadDawg55 said:Good stuff. The attrition and lack of redshirts has hurt the program. Sample, Ducre, Kevin Smith, Pio V, etc. Those guys would really help. That is one thing that excites me about Petersen. I don't think Sark cared about the bottom half of his recruiting classes. Petersen does and he really delves into their character, which hopefully leads to less attrition.
I do disagree with some of the article. This team has talent, but it is lacking it at the most important spot, QB. The RB's are pretty bad too. Talent was only one of the reasons we got plungered by Oregon. As I have stated many times, less talented teams than UW's played tough against Oregon. Arizona even beat them. Jake Fisher returning obviously has been a major boon. However, he was not a 25 point difference.
Nobody expected a great team, just a good one that wins 10 games. Let's not move the goalposts now. The fact that we have flaws and youth/talent deficiencies in places shouldn't be news. It was known all along. 10 wins is still feasible and I think there is enough talent to do that. It won't be easy, but if we don't, I certainly won't blame it all on a lack of talent.
5 stars is a good start. If you asked Greenblood or another logical Duck fan, I doubt they would name more than 5 guys who are stars. I suppose who those star players are also matters. I would trade 3 of our stars for Mariota. I don't blame it all on Petersen, but change can be tough. Some guys have taken to it and gotten better. Danny Shelton, Shaq, and John Ross are examples. Others guys have not. Timu and Feeney haven't gotten any better, and are possibly worse. The OL looks no better than it did last year. Up to this point, I can't say we are over achieving with the talent we have, and we are possibly under achieving. There is still a lot of season left though. -
What's concerning is that we haven't won in Tucson since 2006 (Willingham vs. Mike Stoops), Willingham dropped 2008 and then Sarkisian got blown out of the water in 2010 and 2012.greenblood said:
I think you are winning 3 of those 4 "toss-up" games. The single loss coming to ASU. You'll go 6-3 in Conference 10-3 overall. A bowl win would put you at 11 wins. I think that is entirely possible, especially since you get to skip USC and Utah this year, which is a big help.
-
That's another good point about talent. The same goes for UW. Peters, Kikaha, and Shelton were all 3 star recruits. USC and UCLA are the most talented teams in the conference based off stars. Florida and Michigan would be top 10 teams. On the field, there is nothing elite about those teams. What you do with the talent, and recruiting to your system is more important than the stars Scout and Rivals hand out.greenblood said:
Agreed, but Oregon also has a lot of talent that only had 3 stars during recruitment. This includes guys like Mariota, Kiko Alonso, Jake Fisher, Grasu, Joe Walker (2 stars), Terrence Mitchell, Boyett, Barner, Patterson, Brian Jackson, Mahle, Paulson, and Matthews. Oregon has done a nice job of getting guys that fit their system, vs how pretty their star quantity looks.RoadDawg55 said:Good stuff. The attrition and lack of redshirts has hurt the program. Sample, Ducre, Kevin Smith, Pio V, etc. Those guys would really help. That is one thing that excites me about Petersen. I don't think Sark cared about the bottom half of his recruiting classes. Petersen does and he really delves into their character, which hopefully leads to less attrition.
I do disagree with some of the article. This team has talent, but it is lacking it at the most important spot, QB. The RB's are pretty bad too. Talent was only one of the reasons we got plungered by Oregon. As I have stated many times, less talented teams than UW's played tough against Oregon. Arizona even beat them. Jake Fisher returning obviously has been a major boon. However, he was not a 25 point difference.
Nobody expected a great team, just a good one that wins 10 games. Let's not move the goalposts now. The fact that we have flaws and youth/talent deficiencies in places shouldn't be news. It was known all along. 10 wins is still feasible and I think there is enough talent to do that. It won't be easy, but if we don't, I certainly won't blame it all on a lack of talent.
5 stars is a good start. If you asked Greenblood or another logical Duck fan, I doubt they would name more than 5 guys who are stars. I suppose who those star players are also matters. I would trade 3 of our stars for Mariota. I don't blame it all on Petersen, but change can be tough. Some guys have taken to it and gotten better. Danny Shelton, Shaq, and John Ross are examples. Others guys have not. Timu and Feeney haven't gotten any better, and are possibly worse. The OL looks no better than it did last year. Up to this point, I can't say we are over achieving with the talent we have, and we are possibly under achieving. There is still a lot of season left though. -
Jesus Cristo. Peters/Thompson/Timu/Shelton/Kikaha are all going to be NFL players. Thompson, Peters, Shelton, and Kikaha are all first or second round draft picks. Shelton alone should make the UW defense dominant, since he's a Nick Fairley clone, but with a better burst. Maybe not Timu in the NFL as a draft pick, but he'll be a priority UFA for some NFL team, and I can see him at least making a practice squad.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:I still think this team can win 9 or 10 games if all goes right. But I also don't think there is much talent on this team.
Oregon has maybe 3 defensive players who are NFL locks.
Armstead, Ifo, Buckner (maybe) are Thursday/Friday NFL picks. Dargan may be a late-round draft pick. The Oregon LBs are dreck, but Tony Washington Jr. might sneak into the 6th or 7th round.
I can't figure out why this UW defense isn't dominant. So much NFL talent, it's ridiculous. The DC should be able to coach these guys up a bit to hide the freshmen who for some reason are starting for UW. -
It's a Cuog thing...CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:WSU's numbers are INSANE.
2010: Signed 26, 12 gone already.
2011: Signed 29, 18 gone already.
2012: Signed 27, 13 gone already.
2013: Signed 28, 7 gone already.
Holy Shit, Cuogs -
This may have already been mentioned in the TFL;DFR poasts, but it seems pretty clear that the "edgy" guys Sarkasm went after equate to a high attrition rate. OKFGS equate to a low attrition rate.
Pepsi, would you also include BSU's OKFG attrition rate over the same time period when you do the rest of the P12 for comparison? TIA
I can't wait for more OKFGs. -
YBE, coke. Interesting data points.
-
This actually brings up an interesting poont since ML's roots are in the south. Everyone always wonders how the SEC SEC SEC takes 30+ per class. If they are anticipating that level of attrition per class, then the aggregate number of players left over puts them right were they need to be in the end.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:WSU's numbers are INSANE.
2010: Signed 26, 12 gone already.
2011: Signed 29, 18 gone already.
2012: Signed 27, 13 gone already.
2013: Signed 28, 7 gone already.
Holy Shit, Cuogs -
@greenblood Petersen will definitely recruit to his system. I'm anxious to see what the attrition #s are for Boise. I bet they are very low. I think Petersen will have very balanced classes where a good portion of the bottom half guys contribute. With Sark & Ty it was very few. That shit will really add up in 2,3,4 years but not right away.
It only took Saban, Carroll, Stoops, Meyer, Kelly are really killed it in their second year. Mark Dantonio won 7,9,6 before going 48-13 since which is 41-6 other than one 7-6 year. His breakthrough was in year 4. Perhaps we win 9/10 this season then drop to 7 next year before winning double digits for several years after that. Brian Kelly's breakthrough was in year 3.
If we are talking about average we need to specify W/L or metrics. If there are 70 schools from power conferences then you are average at best if you are not in the top 35-40. We could go 9-4 in reg season win a bowl and still be average from that standpoint. SOS will help push our metrics higher as the year goes on. Our conference schedule this year is easy and that helps our W potential. At this point I'd be really happy with 10-4. -
We will do Boise tomorrow and post the results. I'm actually interested to see if they had more attrition since their last 2 teams haven't been so good. Should be interesting, or not.
-
I awesome'd this post in lieu of the original so "Hardcore_Husky" doesn't steal your rating. I am interested in what this post has to offer but I don't actually think it is awesome.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:We will do Boise tomorrow and post the results. I'm actually interested to see if they had more attrition since their last 2 teams haven't been so good. Should be interesting, or not.
