Why CP will win big at UW, and why it will take a few years. (TLDR)
As LOI day approaches, we will all be reading about "key signees" -- the couple of marquee, four- or five-guys who headline each P12 school's recruiting class. Sarkisian's classes always looked good by this measure: If you don't look beyond the "top" three or four guys in each class, his classes seemed pretty impressive. There certainly seemed to be more star power than in Willingham's classes.
Of course, this superficial view hid the lousy, desperate, "Plan B" guys who'd be grabbed in the eleventh hour to fill out these classes when most of the big names would turn UW down. It also hid the guys who were mis-evaluated, mostly as a result of laziness. (Recall Goncharoff's remark about the main difference between CP's staff and SS's: Petersen's guys wanted whole game films, not just highlight reels.)
Once you cut through the "OKG" bullshit, CP's personnel philsophy comes down to two things: (1) Scouting each recruit carefully and independently; and (2) developing each existing player such that he makes an incrementally larger contribution each year he's with the program. This approach leads to fewer "misses" and greater long-term contributions from the "bottom" half of each recruiting class.
Recruiting "misses" are deadly in this business. Any program that has lived through scholarhip restrictions knows that 85 ain't that many, and that the margin for error is small. Every time you offer a scholarship to the wrong guy, it creates a hole in your depth chart that will eventually have to get filled by some unprepared true frosh down the road. Sark was the master of "misses," as the recent survey reminds us. Everytime a true frosh gets forced onto the field too early, it leads to game-costing mistakes, career-ending injuries, and -- you guessed it -- more future holes in the depth chart that have to get filled. It's a vicious cycle, which CP must -- and I believe will -- eventually reverse. But it will take time.
Looking back in hindsight, how many true frosh can you recall playing at UW in a situation completely devoid of need? Kaufman and Bruener both played as true frosh on the '91 team, despite quality upperclassmen in their position groups. Rich Alexis earned his way onto the field in '00, despite a deep bench of veteran RBs. There is probably a small handful of other examples where UW true frosh absolutely forced their way past quality veterans and onto the field. But need is nearly always the driving force behind each decision to take off a redshirt, from Marques Tuiasosopo to Paul Arnold to Reggie Williams, on down to Shaq, ASJ, and String. Lawyer Milloy benefitted from a redshirt, and Budda Baker would have too. Honestly, what player *isn't* better at age 23 than at age 19?
I believe CP will win big at UW by missing on fewer recruits, developing the guys he has, and gradually playing fewer and fewer true freshmen. The average age of our starting lineup will eventually go way up. It will take a few years, but unlike the last guy CP is here for the long haul. And this patient, grown-up approach will pay huge dividends down the road.
Comments
-
A couple of things that I think are worth adding:
1) To your comments about Petersen's scouting of each recruit independently and about incremental progress within the program, I'd add to the fact that he's also looking for players that will thrive in his program. It's not for everybody. Not everybody wants to do the little things. Not everybody is excited by incremental gains. Not everybody is excited about the process. But the process works. It worked for Petersen at Boise. It works for the Seahawks ... how often do you hear Russell Wilson talk about the process? Championships are won because of the process. They are won every bit as much in the offseason as they are during the season. Most look at the offseason as being just about lifting weights and all of that. But the key to the offseason is that that's where you find the guys that are bought in and are driven to develop themselves (regardless of whether the coaches are around or not) versus the guys that are along for the ride. The guys that are looking to make themselves better. The guys that are putting in place the good habits and seed for growth that they'll see the results of in time.
2) Missing in recruiting is akin to self-imposing scholarship reductions on yourself.
3) Redshirting in today's world is a tricky business. We could have RS a kid like Shaq but he left after 3 years anyway and would have regardless of whether we had him RS or not. With NFL careers being so brief, the $$$ impact of getting to the pro's early if you are that caliber of player is too big of a thing to pass up. Obviously, you want to find guys like that in your program because of the high end talent that they have. But where you find the championship clubs are the 4th and 5th year players that very well will be pro's someday, but they aren't the kind of pro's where they are going to go out and be the 4th round pick that exceeds expectations. We all hear about the Jimmy's and the Joe's. Rarely is the #1 Jimmy the difference between a win and loss. But the Joe's that are #12-#22 in the starting units often are. -
This is just a great post, well done. Agree with so much of what you said.TTJ said:In short, it's about the "bottom" half of each recruiting class.
As LOI day approaches, we will all be reading about "key signees" -- the couple of marquee, four- or five-guys who headline each P12 school's recruiting class. Sarkisian's classes always looked good by this measure: If you don't look beyond the "top" three or four guys in each class, his classes seemed pretty impressive. There certainly seemed to be more star power than in Willingham's classes.
Of course, this superficial view hid the lousy, desperate, "Plan B" guys who'd be grabbed in the eleventh hour to fill out these classes when most of the big names would turn UW down. It also hid the guys who were mis-evaluated, mostly as a result of laziness. (Recall Goncharoff's remark about the main difference between CP's staff and SS's: Petersen's guys wanted whole game films, not just highlight reels.)
Once you cut through the "OKG" bullshit, CP's personnel philsophy comes down to two things: (1) Scouting each recruit carefully and independently; and (2) developing each existing player such that he makes an incrementally larger contribution each year he's with the program. This approach leads to fewer "misses" and greater long-term contributions from the "bottom" half of each recruiting class.
Recruiting "misses" are deadly in this business. Any program that has lived through scholarhip restrictions knows that 85 ain't that many, and that the margin for error is small. Every time you offer a scholarship to the wrong guy, it creates a hole in your depth chart that will eventually have to get filled by some unprepared true frosh down the road. Sark was the master of "misses," as the recent survey reminds us. Everytime a true frosh gets forced onto the field too early, it leads to game-costing mistakes, career-ending injuries, and -- you guessed it -- more future holes in the depth chart that have to get filled. It's a vicious cycle, which CP must -- and I believe will -- eventually reverse. But it will take time.
Looking back in hindsight, how many true frosh can you recall playing at UW in a situation completely devoid of need? Kaufman and Bruener both played as true frosh on the '91 team, despite quality upperclassmen in their position groups. Rich Alexis earned his way onto the field in '00, despite a deep bench of veteran RBs. There is probably a small handful of other examples where UW true frosh absolutely forced their way past quality veterans and onto the field. But need is nearly always the driving force behind each decision to take off a redshirt, from Marques Tuiasosopo to Paul Arnold to Reggie Williams, on down to Shaq, ASJ, and String. Lawyer Milloy benefitted from a redshirt, and Budda Baker would have too. Honestly, what player *isn't* better at age 23 than at age 19?
I believe CP will win big at UW by missing on fewer recruits, developing the guys he has, and gradually playing fewer and fewer true freshmen. The average age of our starting lineup will eventually go way up. It will take a few years, but unlike the last guy CP is here for the long haul. And this patient, grown-up approach will pay huge dividends down the road. -
I was going to read the first one, but with the @TTJ one and the @Tequilla one... I mean, I want to do so many things before I doe. Not just read this and then move to Florida.Tequilla said:A couple of things that I think are worth adding:
1) To your comments about Petersen's scouting of each recruit independently and about incremental progress within the program, I'd add to the fact that he's also looking for players that will thrive in his program. It's not for everybody. Not everybody wants to do the little things. Not everybody is excited by incremental gains. Not everybody is excited about the process. But the process works. It worked for Petersen at Boise. It works for the Seahawks ... how often do you hear Russell Wilson talk about the process? Championships are won because of the process. They are won every bit as much in the offseason as they are during the season. Most look at the offseason as being just about lifting weights and all of that. But the key to the offseason is that that's where you find the guys that are bought in and are driven to develop themselves (regardless of whether the coaches are around or not) versus the guys that are along for the ride. The guys that are looking to make themselves better. The guys that are putting in place the good habits and seed for growth that they'll see the results of in time.
2) Missing in recruiting is akin to self-imposing scholarship reductions on yourself.
3) Redshirting in today's world is a tricky business. We could have RS a kid like Shaq but he left after 3 years anyway and would have regardless of whether we had him RS or not. With NFL careers being so brief, the $$$ impact of getting to the pro's early if you are that caliber of player is too big of a thing to pass up. Obviously, you want to find guys like that in your program because of the high end talent that they have. But where you find the championship clubs are the 4th and 5th year players that very well will be pro's someday, but they aren't the kind of pro's where they are going to go out and be the 4th round pick that exceeds expectations. We all hear about the Jimmy's and the Joe's. Rarely is the #1 Jimmy the difference between a win and loss. But the Joe's that are #12-#22 in the starting units often are.
Thanks anyway guys... I'm sure you made great, insightful, poonts. -
I've always felt like Sark's staff gave new guys one year to become the players they wanted, then set about trying to replace them when they weren't there. Any RS sophomore and many RS freshmen who weren't standing out by the end of that season were as good as gone. Petersen actually approaches it from the angle of building a roster through training and development. He's recruiting guys he thinks can develop, and this includes the higher rated players in his classes. He's not kicking RS sophs to the curb in hopes of a 4* high school kid taking their spot.
-
I agree that cp evaluates more than sark. Hopefully it pays off. I also see some guys in our class that I highly doubt that will ever contribute no matter who evaluated them to what end. Either way it will be interesting.
-
Petersen will win if he finds a QB and figures out what to do on offense. He needs to adapt. I think it's fair to question if he will fire assistants if necessary. He never had to at Boise.
I have no worries about recruiting and he's proven at developing players. -
Yep. I'm not sure if firing assistants is necessary or not. Maybe he can coach them up?RoadDawg55 said:Petersen will win if he finds a QB and figures out what to do on offense. He needs to adapt. I think it's fair to question if he will fire assistants if necessary. He never had to at Boise.
I have no worries about recruiting and he's proven at developing players.
Then again, I'd probably celebrate heavily if I learned he dumped Smith and hired someone proven. -
It's hard to coach up grown-up men who look like Polish grandmas.chuck said:
Yep. I'm not sure if firing assistants is necessary or not. Maybe he can coach them up?RoadDawg55 said:Petersen will win if he finds a QB and figures out what to do on offense. He needs to adapt. I think it's fair to question if he will fire assistants if necessary. He never had to at Boise.
I have no worries about recruiting and he's proven at developing players.
Then again, I'd probably celebrate heavily if I learned he dumped Smith and hired someone proven. -
missing 3 reasons...Tequilla said:
A couple of things that I think are worth adding:
1) To your comments about Petersen's scouting of each recruit independently and about incremental progress within the program, I'd add to the fact that he's also looking for players that will thrive in his program. It's not for everybody. Not everybody wants to do the little things. Not everybody is excited by incremental gains. Not everybody is excited about the process. But the process works. It worked for Petersen at Boise. It works for the Seahawks ... how often do you hear Russell Wilson talk about the process? Championships are won because of the process. They are won every bit as much in the offseason as they are during the season. Most look at the offseason as being just about lifting weights and all of that. But the key to the offseason is that that's where you find the guys that are bought in and are driven to develop themselves (regardless of whether the coaches are around or not) versus the guys that are along for the ride. The guys that are looking to make themselves better. The guys that are putting in place the good habits and seed for growth that they'll see the results of in time.
2) Missing in recruiting is akin to self-imposing scholarship reductions on yourself.
3) Redshirting in today's world is a tricky business. We could have RS a kid like Shaq but he left after 3 years anyway and would have regardless of whether we had him RS or not. With NFL careers being so brief, the $$$ impact of getting to the pro's early if you are that caliber of player is too big of a thing to pass up. Obviously, you want to find guys like that in your program because of the high end talent that they have. But where you find the championship clubs are the 4th and 5th year players that very well will be pro's someday, but they aren't the kind of pro's where they are going to go out and be the 4th round pick that exceeds expectations. We all hear about the Jimmy's and the Joe's. Rarely is the #1 Jimmy the difference between a win and loss. But the Joe's that are #12-#22 in the starting units often are. -
It was pretty obvious to me after about 3 games that Sarks players were turds and Petersen had a long road ahead of him. I'm am extremely confident after a couple recruiting classes they will be built to win for a long time.
Yea yea dooging it up he hasn't won a rose bowl underachieved this year blah blah blah. -
Look at what Mark Dantonio has done at Michigan St. Took him until year 4 to really get it going. But from years 4-8, he is 53-14 and thats the 6th best record among the major conference teams. No reason Petersen can't have similar success.
-
I'd even say Washington should be able to get better talent than Mich State.HeretoBeatmyChest said:Look at what Mark Dantonio has done at Michigan St. Took him until year 4 to really get it going. But from years 4-8, he is 53-14 and thats the 6th best record among the major conference teams. No reason Petersen can't have similar success.
-
I think he looks like this guy...using the term loosely.PurpleBaze said:
It's hard to coach up grown-up men who look like Polish grandmas.chuck said:
Yep. I'm not sure if firing assistants is necessary or not. Maybe he can coach them up?RoadDawg55 said:Petersen will win if he finds a QB and figures out what to do on offense. He needs to adapt. I think it's fair to question if he will fire assistants if necessary. He never had to at Boise.
I have no worries about recruiting and he's proven at developing players.
Then again, I'd probably celebrate heavily if I learned he dumped Smith and hired someone proven. -
coach pete has had most of his success against more talented teams by developing 2 and 3 stars into solid players and "team" guys. that beatdown he put on georgia a few years back with all those redshirt seniors at boise is a great example. i expect he'll do the same here except he'll have his fair share of high end talent to go with it.HeretoBeatmyChest said:Look at what Mark Dantonio has done at Michigan St. Took him until year 4 to really get it going. But from years 4-8, he is 53-14 and thats the 6th best record among the major conference teams. No reason Petersen can't have similar success.
cant underestimate the ability of well coached/developed 22 and 23 year old college players, even if they were "only" 3 stars, etc. evalution and development will win the day for coach pete.
-
TTJ said:
In short, it's about the "bottom" half of each recruiting class.
Looking back in hindsight, how many true frosh can you recall playing at UW in a situation completely devoid of need? Kaufman and Bruener both played as true frosh on the '91 team, despite quality upperclassmen in their position groups. Rich Alexis earned his way onto the field in '00, despite a deep bench of veteran RBs. There is probably a small handful of other examples where UW true frosh absolutely forced their way past quality veterans and onto the field. But need is nearly always the driving force behind each decision to take off a redshirt, from Marques Tuiasosopo to Paul Arnold to Reggie Williams, on down to Shaq, ASJ, and String. Lawyer Milloy benefitted from a redshirt, and Budda Baker would have too. Honestly, what player *isn't* better at age 23 than at age 19?
I believe CP will win big at UW by missing on fewer recruits, developing the guys he has, and gradually playing fewer and fewer true freshmen. The average age of our starting lineup will eventually go way up. It will take a few years, but unlike the last guy CP is here for the long haul. And this patient, grown-up approach will pay huge dividends down the road.
Free Pub!!llII
And good read.
-
If your hero would have recruited just one serviceable QB, Peterman wouldn't be in this position.RoadDawg55 said:Petersen will win if he finds a QB and figures out what to do on offense. He needs to adapt. I think it's fair to question if he will fire assistants if necessary. He never had to at Boise.
I have no worries about recruiting and he's proven at developing players. -
According to you, Lindquist is a great QB.sarktastic said:
If your hero would have recruited just one serviceable QB, Peterman wouldn't be in this position.RoadDawg55 said:Petersen will win if he finds a QB and figures out what to do on offense. He needs to adapt. I think it's fair to question if he will fire assistants if necessary. He never had to at Boise.
I have no worries about recruiting and he's proven at developing players. -
I said no racist crap.WhiteFlash said:
coach pete has had most of his success against more talented teams by developing 2 and 3 stars into solid players and "team" guys. that beatdown he put on georgia a few years back with all those redshirt seniors at boise is a great example. i expect he'll do the same here except he'll have his fair share of high end talent to go with it.HeretoBeatmyChest said:Look at what Mark Dantonio has done at Michigan St. Took him until year 4 to really get it going. But from years 4-8, he is 53-14 and thats the 6th best record among the major conference teams. No reason Petersen can't have similar success.
cant underestimate the ability of well coached/developed 22 and 23 year old college players, even if they were "only" 3 stars, etc. evalution and development will win the day for coach pete. -
You aren't very smart, are you.RoadDawg55 said:
According to you, Lindquist is a great QB.sarktastic said:
If your hero would have recruited just one serviceable QB, Peterman wouldn't be in this position.RoadDawg55 said:Petersen will win if he finds a QB and figures out what to do on offense. He needs to adapt. I think it's fair to question if he will fire assistants if necessary. He never had to at Boise.
I have no worries about recruiting and he's proven at developing players. -
You aren't very clever, are you.sarktastic said:
You aren't very smart, are you.RoadDawg55 said:
According to you, Lindquist is a great QB.sarktastic said:
If your hero would have recruited just one serviceable QB, Peterman wouldn't be in this position.RoadDawg55 said:Petersen will win if he finds a QB and figures out what to do on offense. He needs to adapt. I think it's fair to question if he will fire assistants if necessary. He never had to at Boise.
I have no worries about recruiting and he's proven at developing players. -
Never claimed to be. Also never claimed to be a Road skoller, in nearly 10,000 posts, either.
-
Great post. Only Tequilla could reply to a TLDR post with another TLDR post.
-
Posting something as TL, DR not only is FREE PUB for me but also is calling out for the master of TL, DR to contribute ...Doogles said:Great post. Only Tequilla could reply to a TLDR post with another TLDR post.
In case you haven't heard, I'm kind of a big deal ... -
Tequilla said:
Posting something as TL, DR not only is FREE PUB for me but also is calling out for the master of TL, DR to contribute ...Doogles said:Great post. Only Tequilla could reply to a TLDR post with another TLDR post.
In case you haven't heard, I'm kind of a big deal ...
axe @RaceBannon -
Don't make me take the gloves offpawz said:Tequilla said:
Posting something as TL, DR not only is FREE PUB for me but also is calling out for the master of TL, DR to contribute ...Doogles said:Great post. Only Tequilla could reply to a TLDR post with another TLDR post.
In case you haven't heard, I'm kind of a big deal ...
axe @RaceBannon -
The script says ....Tequilla said:
Don't make me take the gloves offpawz said:Tequilla said:
Posting something as TL, DR not only is FREE PUB for me but also is calling out for the master of TL, DR to contribute ...Doogles said:Great post. Only Tequilla could reply to a TLDR post with another TLDR post.
In case you haven't heard, I'm kind of a big deal ...
axe @RaceBannon
Let's roll. -
CP has a great track record of finding/developing QB's. I have no worries about that position after a couple years. Hopefully we already have an OKGQB commit or on the roster.RoadDawg55 said:Petersen will win if he finds a QB and figures out what to do on offense. He needs to adapt. I think it's fair to question if he will fire assistants if necessary. He never had to at Boise.
I have no worries about recruiting and he's proven at developing players.
BTW, GREAT UNI's -
As a head coach he's had one great QB. There isn't a great long track record. I think Browning will be good, but there really isn't an extensive list of Petersen QB's.d2d said:
CP has a great track record of finding/developing QB's. I have no worries about that position after a couple years. Hopefully we already have an OKGQB commit or on the roster.RoadDawg55 said:Petersen will win if he finds a QB and figures out what to do on offense. He needs to adapt. I think it's fair to question if he will fire assistants if necessary. He never had to at Boise.
I have no worries about recruiting and he's proven at developing players.
BTW, GREAT UNI's
Zabransky was there when Petersen became head coach. Then Tharps was the QB for a year. Then Kellen Moore took over. He was a great QB. Southwick the Hedricks were maybe above average. Neither was anything special. QB will be a concern until we have a great one. Good aka another Keith Price probably isn't going to cut it if we want to win the PAC 12.
The quarterback guru label is often bullshit. Sark is example #1. Jeff Tedford was considered one after Akili Smith, Harrington, Boller, and Aaron Rodgers. Then he ran out dreck at QB the rest of his time at Cal. Ricky Neu had Kordell Stewert and Detmer at Colorado before Tui and Picket at UW. His QB's at UCLA were unbelievably bad.
Point is, the rep means jack shit until we have someone playing well at QB.
*Cue some fucktard replying, "YOU ARE COMPARING PETERSEN TO SARK, TEDFORD, AND SLICK!!!11! -
Longshore was pretty good until he got hurt. I was at the OSU vs Cal game where they were ranked number 2 and #1LSU lost. They announced it over the loudspeaker and the crowd went crazy.
That was where Kevin Riley went full retard and tried to run for the TD instead of throwing the ball away and taking a chip shot fg into overtime. Complete devastation for the fanbase.
Huge upset, cost Cal there first ever #1 AP ranking, and Tedford's career never recovered. Cal Buddy was kicked out of the game by the third quarter and later got arrested for stealing a team golf cart and driving it down greek row. He was blacked out. I love my friends. -
The good thing about you and your Jesbian buddies is you can marry them now.Doogles said:Longshore was pretty good until he got hurt. I was at the OSU vs Cal game where they were ranked number 2 and #1LSU lost. They announced it over the loudspeaker and the crowd went crazy.
That was where Kevin Riley went full retard and tried to run for the TD instead of throwing the ball away and taking a chip shot fg into overtime. Complete devastation for the fanbase.
Huge upset, cost Cal there first ever #1 AP ranking, and Tedford's career never recovered. Cal Buddy was kicked out of the game by the third quarter and later got arrested for stealing a team golf cart and driving it down greek row. He was blacked out. I love my friends.
