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.
Options

Attrition Revisited

HFNYHFNY Member Posts: 4,524
First Anniversary 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes First Comment
Standard Supporter
Sarkisian was a software salesman before getting into coaching so the positive is that he largely knew how to sell Husky Football. However, he clearly didn't know much about building a program for the long-term and particularly didn't know how to balance a roster while avoiding substantial attrition.

In just the 2010, 2011, and 2012 recruiting classes, the attrition of Sarkisian recruited players has been shocking:

2010: 13

2011: 8 (not including early NFL departures Sankey and ASJ...and not counting Waste-Of-Space Derrick Brown).

2012: 9

THAT'S 30 PLAYERS IN JUST 3 CLASSES! Normal recruiting classes are 20-25 so we lost nearly 1 1/2 recruiting classes in just 3 years of Sarkisian Sloppiness.

How many recruiting classes will it take for Petersen to reach an attrition of 30 players. 5 classes? 6 classes? Lavon Washington was the first guy to bounce from the 2014 class but he actually committed to Sarkisian first he shouldn't count (and did somethingFS to get kicked off the team).

Comments

  • Options
    CuntWaffleCuntWaffle Member Posts: 22,493
    First Anniversary 5 Fuck Offs 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes
    The talent on offense though...
  • Options
    MrsPetersenMrsPetersen Member Posts: 724
    First Anniversary 5 Awesomes Name Dropper First Comment
    edited October 2014
    Obviously some level of attrition is necessary, but you get to levels of 13-15 guys in a class it's almost like putting yourself on probation IMHO.

    The Cuogs numbers are astounding..
  • Options
    RapeculturedawgRapeculturedawg Member Posts: 899
    First Anniversary 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes First Comment
    Sark's classes tend to look pretty crappy in retrospect. When you combine the attrition with the 4* players that don't pan out, you see how weak they really are.

    take a look at 2010's 4* recruits

    Shirley
    Parker
    Patoae
    Hatchie
    Smith
    Cooper
    Kohler
    Porter
    Montana
    Young

    Parker is really the only one that played well for the duration of his career, the others either didn't play at all, left early because they weren't any good to begin with, were average players through their career, or had one big year.

  • Options
    RapeculturedawgRapeculturedawg Member Posts: 899
    First Anniversary 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes First Comment

    Funny how you all lump injuries in to a coaches attrition. Injuries happen regardless of a coach. For example, on the 2010 class listed above Porter, Cooper, Kohler, and Smith all sustained major injuries during their time at UW. Of which ended the careers of Porter and Kohler.

    Fuck off
  • Options
    HFNYHFNY Member Posts: 4,524
    First Anniversary 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes First Comment
    Standard Supporter
    Of course one should include them because not all injuries are bad luck. Playing freshmen for the hell of it rather than redshirting them (mismanaging a roster) leads to more injuries. Plus it's not like people are counting BSU's attrition for the same 3 years but excluding injuries.

    In sum, including injuries is the best way to do the Apples to Apples comparison.

    Funny how you all lump injuries in to a coaches attrition. Injuries happen regardless of a coach. For example, on the 2010 class listed above Porter, Cooper, Kohler, and Smith all sustained major injuries during their time at UW. Of which ended the careers of Porter and Kohler.

  • Options
    MisterEmMisterEm Member Posts: 6,685
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment
    Too much logic HFNY, not enough sizzle.
  • Options
    TequillaTequilla Member Posts: 19,815
    First Anniversary 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes 5 Fuck Offs
    It's simple math ...

    If you take 25 guys each year, RS all frosh, and all eligible players stay all 5 years in the program (125 eligible scholarships), the program can absorb an average of 10 people leaving before exhausting their eligibility (assuming 4 years eligible to leave the program - after your RS year, Frosh, Soph, and Junior years).

    So while Sark's numbers look bad, it's reasonable enough when you look at taking full classes each year.

    The underlying PROBLEM with taking a full class each year is that the overwhelming number of players on your roster are underclassmen. And as we all know, if you really want to win at a high level, your best players in the program should be the guys that have been in the program 3-5 years sprinkled in with a handful of younger players that have the talent to crack into the rotation.

    Our defense is a great example of the above. Shelton was probably an above average player through his first 2 years in the program. Last year he started to become a little more consistent and contend on the fringes of being an all-conference performer. This year he will be a 1st team all conference player and in consideration for All Americas in year 4 in the program. Kikaha has had injury issues, but much the same. He's in his 5th year in the program and is absolutely dominating. Shaq was an above average PAC player for most of his first two years. This year he's an absolute difference maker.
  • Options
    sarktasticsarktastic Member Posts: 9,208
    5 Awesomes Photogenic First Anniversary Name Dropper
    Tequilla said:

    It's simple math ...

    If you take 25 guys each year, RS all frosh, and all eligible players stay all 5 years in the program (125 eligible scholarships), the program can absorb an average of 10 people leaving before exhausting their eligibility (assuming 4 years eligible to leave the program - after your RS year, Frosh, Soph, and Junior years).

    So while Sark's numbers look bad, it's reasonable enough when you look at taking full classes each year.

    The underlying PROBLEM with taking a full class each year is that the overwhelming number of players on your roster are underclassmen. And as we all know, if you really want to win at a high level, your best players in the program should be the guys that have been in the program 3-5 years sprinkled in with a handful of younger players that have the talent to crack into the rotation.

    Our defense is a great example of the above. Shelton was probably an above average player through his first 2 years in the program. Last year he started to become a little more consistent and contend on the fringes of being an all-conference performer. This year he will be a 1st team all conference player and in consideration for All Americas in year 4 in the program. Kikaha has had injury issues, but much the same. He's in his 5th year in the program and is absolutely dominating. Shaq was an above average PAC player for most of his first two years. This year he's an absolute difference maker.

    Forever young.
  • Options
    TequillaTequilla Member Posts: 19,815
    First Anniversary 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes 5 Fuck Offs

    Tequilla said:

    It's simple math ...

    If you take 25 guys each year, RS all frosh, and all eligible players stay all 5 years in the program (125 eligible scholarships), the program can absorb an average of 10 people leaving before exhausting their eligibility (assuming 4 years eligible to leave the program - after your RS year, Frosh, Soph, and Junior years).

    So while Sark's numbers look bad, it's reasonable enough when you look at taking full classes each year.

    The underlying PROBLEM with taking a full class each year is that the overwhelming number of players on your roster are underclassmen. And as we all know, if you really want to win at a high level, your best players in the program should be the guys that have been in the program 3-5 years sprinkled in with a handful of younger players that have the talent to crack into the rotation.

    Our defense is a great example of the above. Shelton was probably an above average player through his first 2 years in the program. Last year he started to become a little more consistent and contend on the fringes of being an all-conference performer. This year he will be a 1st team all conference player and in consideration for All Americas in year 4 in the program. Kikaha has had injury issues, but much the same. He's in his 5th year in the program and is absolutely dominating. Shaq was an above average PAC player for most of his first two years. This year he's an absolute difference maker.

    Forever young.
    Obligatory

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGEe_zpddNI
  • Options
    HFNYHFNY Member Posts: 4,524
    First Anniversary 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes First Comment
    Standard Supporter
    Yes, theoretically your first paragraph (taking 25 each and every year and redshirting them all) could happen but it rarely does. Sarkisian took 19 guys in the 2009 class (not all his fault but still a 57.89% attrition rate) so he was able to take 31 in 2010. Unfortunately, 13 of those guys washed out (which is a 42% rate) which just too high of a miss rate, especially after 2009. It sure would be great to have a RS-SR RT to step in for Riva and maybe another at SS but instead we have a RS-Frosh at RT and a true soph at SS in Kevin King (who is more of a FS and missed a good chunk of last year with a shoulder injury / surgery after playing for some reason as a lanky true frosh).

    The 2012 class is now true Juniors and RS-Sophs but it already has a washout rate of 41%! That also hurts because our depth is being tested at OL (2 washouts from that class in OTs Nathan Dean and Taylor Hindy, who was a panic offer), the secondary (two washouts there in Darien Washington and Cleveland Wallace), and RB (2 washouts in Erich Wilson and Ryan McDaniel).

    Talent / depth wise, it makes sense we are now struggling at QB, OL, RB, and the secondary.

    -Montana and Derrick Brown were busts as QBs in 2010/2011

    -Porter, Kohler, Hindy, and Dean washed out for the OL from the 2010 and 2012 classes. Only grabbed 2 OL in the 2011 class and all that combines as to why we are having to play a RS-Frosh RT a year early.

    -RB wouldn't be so bad if Callier hadn't gotten hurt but Erich Wilson, Ryan McDaniel, and Kyle Lewis either never played a down or barely played.

    -RS-SR (2010 recruit) Taz Stevenson is Hawaii's leading tackler and he'd be nice to have to compete with true frosh Kevin King, especially with Trevor Walker out now. RS-JR James Sample of the 2011 class played as a true frosh, hurt his shoulder, went the JC route, and now will be starting tonight at safety for #25 Louisville against #1 FSU. He's second on the team in tackles with 3 INTs and 7 passes defended. If he had stuck around, he'd be starting over King for sure and King never would've had to play last year! Evan Zeger also washed out and could've been a back-up SS as a RS-JR. And we wouldn't be starting a true frosh at CB (Sidney Jones) if the former staff had recruited better at CB as both Cleveland Wallace and Darien Washington washed out.
    Tequilla said:

    It's simple math ...

    If you take 25 guys each year, RS all frosh, and all eligible players stay all 5 years in the program (125 eligible scholarships), the program can absorb an average of 10 people leaving before exhausting their eligibility (assuming 4 years eligible to leave the program - after your RS year, Frosh, Soph, and Junior years).

    So while Sark's numbers look bad, it's reasonable enough when you look at taking full classes each year.

    The underlying PROBLEM with taking a full class each year is that the overwhelming number of players on your roster are underclassmen. And as we all know, if you really want to win at a high level, your best players in the program should be the guys that have been in the program 3-5 years sprinkled in with a handful of younger players that have the talent to crack into the rotation.

    Our defense is a great example of the above. Shelton was probably an above average player through his first 2 years in the program. Last year he started to become a little more consistent and contend on the fringes of being an all-conference performer. This year he will be a 1st team all conference player and in consideration for All Americas in year 4 in the program. Kikaha has had injury issues, but much the same. He's in his 5th year in the program and is absolutely dominating. Shaq was an above average PAC player for most of his first two years. This year he's an absolute difference maker.

  • Options
    TequillaTequilla Member Posts: 19,815
    First Anniversary 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes 5 Fuck Offs
    HFNY,

    I get your points.

    All I was trying to get at was that the numbers of the attrition isn't necessarily a bad thing in an ideal sense ... but when you look at all the other components, the attrition is too high.
  • Options
    CokeGreaterThanPepsiCokeGreaterThanPepsi Member Posts: 7,646
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes Combo Breaker
    If you are over 7 attrition in a class that is not good imo. If you are loosing 6 players a class that is a good number. Over 4 years, 6 guys leaving per class that means you can recruit 24 in the 5th class. if you are in double digits it is an absolute fail.
  • Options
    sarktasticsarktastic Member Posts: 9,208
    5 Awesomes Photogenic First Anniversary Name Dropper
    edited October 2014
    125 - 85 = attrition

    if you aren't taking 25 every class you're either ready to challenge for a natty or you aren't attritting properly and will probably be fired soon anyway.
Sign In or Register to comment.