Petersen Question From Stewart Mandel's Mailbag
-- Joseph V. Manzo, Coral Gables, Fla.
I don't think you can say Harsin was the brains behind Petersen -- like the way we often said Petersen was the brains behind predecessor Dan Hawkins -- because for one thing, those great Boise State teams won with a suffocating defense as much as they did a creative offense. But more to the point, Harsin left for Texas in 2011 and the Broncos kept winning. Petersen was the primary architect behind Boise's extraordinary 84-8 run from 2006-12, and I fully expect him to elevate Washington over the next couple of years.
If that doesn't happen, though, it would raise more questions about Petersen than it would either his current or former employer. While Washington has struggled for more than a decade, it's at no real institutional disadvantage compared with its divisional foes. If anything its location should give it a better chance at success than even Oregon. And while people would inevitably try to correlate Petersen with former Boise coaches Hawkins (Colorado) and Dirk Koetter (Arizona State), who flopped at a higher level, that seems misguided, too. Each of those guys ran the program in their own unique ways, but beyond that, why would Boise be a less likely launching point than Bowling Green (Urban Meyer), Central Michigan (Brian Kelly) or any number of other mid-majors?
Having said all that, Petersen's personality and philosophy were ideally suited to Boise. There's no guarantee they will translate at Washington, but I believe they will.
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/2015-sec-media-days-alabama-crimson-tide-florida-state-seminoles-dalvin-cook-mailbag-071515
Comments
-
Agree 100%
Thanks for posting -
Judging from how Petersen is blowing everything up and blowing up on the recruiting trail, seems like his personality and philosophy are working fine here, too.RoadDawg55 said:Stewart, if Boise State returns to the Boise State of old and Washington remains mired in mediocrity, what will it mean? Will it mean that Bryan Harsin was the brains behind Chris Petersen? Will it mean that success at Boise State simply doesn't translate elsewhere? Will it mean that Washington no longer has whatever it had as late as the early 2000s?
-- Joseph V. Manzo, Coral Gables, Fla.
I don't think you can say Harsin was the brains behind Petersen -- like the way we often said Petersen was the brains behind predecessor Dan Hawkins -- because for one thing, those great Boise State teams won with a suffocating defense as much as they did a creative offense. But more to the point, Harsin left for Texas in 2011 and the Broncos kept winning. Petersen was the primary architect behind Boise's extraordinary 84-8 run from 2006-12, and I fully expect him to elevate Washington over the next couple of years.
If that doesn't happen, though, it would raise more questions about Petersen than it would either his current or former employer. While Washington has struggled for more than a decade, it's at no real institutional disadvantage compared with its divisional foes. If anything its location should give it a better chance at success than even Oregon. And while people would inevitably try to correlate Petersen with former Boise coaches Hawkins (Colorado) and Dirk Koetter (Arizona State), who flopped at a higher level, that seems misguided, too. Each of those guys ran the program in their own unique ways, but beyond that, why would Boise be a less likely launching point than Bowling Green (Urban Meyer), Central Michigan (Brian Kelly) or any number of other mid-majors?
Having said all that, Petersen's personality and philosophy were ideally suited to Boise. There's no guarantee they will translate at Washington, but I believe they will.
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/2015-sec-media-days-alabama-crimson-tide-florida-state-seminoles-dalvin-cook-mailbag-071515 -
Of all the Pac-12 jobs, I believe Petersen when he says he really wanted UW and it was a good fit. Personality wise, Seattle suits him well and UW offers the opportunity to build a national powerhouse without compromising his personal wants. Whether he can do it remains to be seen. The early returns from the recruiting classes suggest he might.
-
National powerhouse from two ~20th ranked classes? Surely you jest.AEB said:Of all the Pac-12 jobs, I believe Petersen when he says he really wanted UW and it was a good fit. Personality wise, Seattle suits him well and UW offers the opportunity to build a national powerhouse without compromising his personal wants. Whether he can do it remains to be seen. The early returns from the recruiting classes suggest
he might.he's good but not amazing at recruiting.
Not that rankings are everything, but we missed on Skinny Eason and lost out on every super big-time guy in Cali last year. Don't get me wrong, I like our recruiting classes, but BBK, Kyler Nanu, DJ Beavers and Andre Bacchanalia are not impressive kids.
We got like 6-8 kids last year that are the kind of kids we were getting in '88-'90: Gaskin, Renfro, McClatcher, Adams, Roberts, Potoa'e, Joyner... you could throw Browning and Neal in there if you were feeling generous. Outside of those guys, it's a fucking crapshoot and even inside those guys you're talking about an expectation of a 2/3 success rate.
Bartlett, Hilbers, McCoy and Scrempos are guys that you could see being good at some point if they develop right.
The rest are just leftovers. -
I think Kim's FS comments from when Peterman was hired have some inflating his recruiting results. Last year's class was sixth in the PAC 12 on 24/7 and 5th on Scout. That's right in the middle. It's pretty good, but other schools recruit good players too.
-
Part of my faith in Pete's recruiting comes from Sidney Jones, Dante Pettis and Will Dissly. All these guys were not highly recruited, but played well as freshmen and were specifically targeted by Pete as guys who hadn't gotten big time offers, but who were good players.RoadDawg55 said:I think Kim's FS comments from when Peterman was hired have some inflating his recruiting results. Last year's class was sixth in the PAC 12 on 24/7 and 5th on Scout. That's right in the middle. It's pretty good, but other schools recruit good players too.
Obviously 1 year is not enough to make a judgment, but to the extent that there is any evidence at all, the evidence points to him doing well picking out players.
He certainly doesn't just offer and recruit every 4-star kid. He is selective and that shows even when he's offering kids that no one else likes.
I keep trashing the midget LBs, WR and Jordan Miller (who is fucking awful), but I do think he's not just crazy; there's something there he likes. His track record at Boise speaks for itself and when you combine that with what we saw out of guys like Jones, Pettis and Dissly last year, I think there's some evidence that his mid-tier guys can be trusted.
No one fucking wins a national championship with a bunch of mid tier guys, though. You get Natty's because you have the 3-stars that turn into Emptermanns and the 4 and 5 star kids are all really outstanding.
Our Natty team was filled with top-level recruits and depth players who were also top level recruits (this is their equivalent star ratings):
QB: Billy Joe Hobert - 4 (Mark Brunell - 4)
RB: Beno Bryant - 4 (Jay Berry - 4, Nip - 5)
FB: Matt Jones - 4 (Matt Jones - 4)
WR: Mario Bailey - 4
WR: Orlando McKay - 4
TE: Aaron Pierce - 4 (Mark Bruener - 5)
T: Kris Rongen - 3 (Andrew Peterson - 5)
G: Lincoln Kennedy - 5
C: Ed Cunningham - 4 (Frank Garcia - 3)
G: Pete Kaligis - 3
T: Siupeli Malamala - 4 (Tom Gallagher - 4)
DE: Donald Jones - 3 (Jamal Fountaine - 4)
DT: Stan Emptermann - 3 (D'Marco Farr - 4)
DT: Tyrone Rogers - 4 (Mike Lustyk - 5, Steve Hoffmann - 5)
DE: Andy Mason - 3
LB: Dave Hoffmann - 4/5 (James Clifford - 3/4)
LB: Jaime Fields - 3/4 (Hilary Butler - 4)
LB: Chico Fraley - 3/4 (Brett Collins - 3/4)
DB: Walter Bailey - 4 (William Doctor - 3/4)
DB: Dana Hall - 4
DB: Tommie Smith - 5 (Paxton Tailele - 4)
DB: Shane Pahukoa - 3 -
RoadDawg55 said:
...Will it mean that Washington no longer has whatever it had as late as the early 2000s?
-- Joseph V. Manzo, Coral Gables, Fla.
I have no idea what Joseph is referring to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r5kK4_Wu_0 -
What you are looking for to some degree is growth in recruiting quality year after year ... a building block approach.
In the transition class, Petersen did a good job of bringing in a handful of players that we think can be difference makers and what would appear to be a number of quality players that are going to build out the overall depth of the program.
DD did a good job of summarizing the 2015 class and I tend to agree in that we'll end up with somewhere between 6-10 real solid players out of the class and again a number of players that will drive up the overall depth of the program.
The 2016 class is projecting to be a relatively small class (15-20 kids) but the early results are very encouraging in terms of the overall quality. This is the level of class that I expect to see going forward.
When you look back at the level of mediocrity in the program over the last 5-7 years, there have been a couple of constant themes that I've seen:
1) When we've had top level talent, that top level talent is quite good ... we just don't have enough of it ... we may have 4-6 players in any given year whereas the top programs are going to have more in the 8-10 range.
2) The delta between our top end players and the remaining starters has been greater than that of the top programs in the conference ... when such a delta exists it makes it much easier for other teams to play away from your better players defensively and focus on them offensively.
3) The difference in quality between the first and second string has been vast. Top teams are able to replace injured players with similar quality depth as well as liberally rotate during games to ensure that their team is fresh in the 2nd half and in particular the 4th quarter of games.
There's no question in my mind that the tools exist to win still at the UW at a high level. What's been missing for the better part of 20+ years is a coach with the vision and focus necessary to be able to create a program that capitalizes on what is required to win at a high level. Petersen is that kind of coach. -
Like with all @Tequilla poasts, I just pick one or two sentences to read and vote accordingly. This poast seems reasonable, but only god knows what's all in it.Tequilla said:What you are looking for to some degree is growth in recruiting quality year after year ... a building block approach.
In the transition class, Petersen did a good job of bringing in a handful of players that we think can be difference makers and what would appear to be a number of quality players that are going to build out the overall depth of the program.
DD did a good job of summarizing the 2015 class and I tend to agree in that we'll end up with somewhere between 6-10 real solid players out of the class and again a number of players that will drive up the overall depth of the program.
The 2016 class is projecting to be a relatively small class (15-20 kids) but the early results are very encouraging in terms of the overall quality. This is the level of class that I expect to see going forward.
When you look back at the level of mediocrity in the program over the last 5-7 years, there have been a couple of constant themes that I've seen:
1) When we've had top level talent, that top level talent is quite good ... we just don't have enough of it ... we may have 4-6 players in any given year whereas the top programs are going to have more in the 8-10 range.
2) The delta between our top end players and the remaining starters has been greater than that of the top programs in the conference ... when such a delta exists it makes it much easier for other teams to play away from your better players defensively and focus on them offensively.
3) The difference in quality between the first and second string has been vast. Top teams are able to replace injured players with similar quality depth as well as liberally rotate during games to ensure that their team is fresh in the 2nd half and in particular the 4th quarter of games.
There's no question in my mind that the tools exist to win still at the UW at a high level. What's been missing for the better part of 20+ years is a coach with the vision and focus necessary to be able to create a program that capitalizes on what is required to win at a high level. Petersen is that kind of coach. -
It's kind of a water is wet statement, but in order to be really good, Petersen is going to have to be a top 2 coach in the conference. We will very likely never have the top talent in the conference according to the rankings, but great coaches have a vision and develop lesser talent, like Harbaugh did at Stanford.
Some of this regime has been great such as the freshman last year, the OL recruiting, and the disciplined culture Petersen is building. All of that makes me hopeful for the future. However, thinking about the offensive scheme and the QB's sour me just as quickly. -
Keep in mind, coaches are recruiting these players for 2+ years now.Dennis_DeYoung said:
National powerhouse from two ~20th ranked classes? Surely you jest.AEB said:Of all the Pac-12 jobs, I believe Petersen when he says he really wanted UW and it was a good fit. Personality wise, Seattle suits him well and UW offers the opportunity to build a national powerhouse without compromising his personal wants. Whether he can do it remains to be seen. The early returns from the recruiting classes suggest
he might.he's good but not amazing at recruiting.
Not that rankings are everything, but we missed on Skinny Eason and lost out on every super big-time guy in Cali last year. Don't get me wrong, I like our recruiting classes, but BBK, Kyler Nanu, DJ Beavers and Andre Bacchanalia are not impressive kids.
We got like 6-8 kids last year that are the kind of kids we were getting in '88-'90: Gaskin, Renfro, McClatcher, Adams, Roberts, Potoa'e, Joyner... you could throw Browning and Neal in there if you were feeling generous. Outside of those guys, it's a fucking crapshoot and even inside those guys you're talking about an expectation of a 2/3 success rate.
Bartlett, Hilbers, McCoy and Scrempos are guys that you could see being good at some point if they develop right.
The rest are just leftovers.
Petersen wasn't recruiting these kids at BSU (except Browning) because none of them would ever go to BSU (except Ryphen). When Petersen moved up to UW in December 2013, he was at a significant disadvantage versus the other schools for 2014 and 2015 because the coaches at those schools had already formed relationships with the recruits. This was more evident from 2014, but all the super big-time guys in California probably knew Mora, Shaw, Helfrich, and Sark for 2+ years before Petersen even watched their film.
Then again, I don't think we'll have very much success with the super big-time guys in California with Petersen at the helm because almost all of those kids don't fit in with Petersen's philosophy. They're flashy and edgy and would never go to a church school like UW. That said, if Petersen can find the guys that are willing to commit to the program and work their assess off, we'll start to see more Sheltons and Kikahas and whatnot in our 2-deeps. -
So fucking what. Results or door ass out. Until we get 2-3 kids from Cali EVERY YEAR that have USC, UCLA and Oregon offers we are fucked.whatshouldicareabout said:
Keep in mind, coaches are recruiting these players for 2+ years now.Dennis_DeYoung said:
National powerhouse from two ~20th ranked classes? Surely you jest.AEB said:Of all the Pac-12 jobs, I believe Petersen when he says he really wanted UW and it was a good fit. Personality wise, Seattle suits him well and UW offers the opportunity to build a national powerhouse without compromising his personal wants. Whether he can do it remains to be seen. The early returns from the recruiting classes suggest
he might.he's good but not amazing at recruiting.
Not that rankings are everything, but we missed on Skinny Eason and lost out on every super big-time guy in Cali last year. Don't get me wrong, I like our recruiting classes, but BBK, Kyler Nanu, DJ Beavers and Andre Bacchanalia are not impressive kids.
We got like 6-8 kids last year that are the kind of kids we were getting in '88-'90: Gaskin, Renfro, McClatcher, Adams, Roberts, Potoa'e, Joyner... you could throw Browning and Neal in there if you were feeling generous. Outside of those guys, it's a fucking crapshoot and even inside those guys you're talking about an expectation of a 2/3 success rate.
Bartlett, Hilbers, McCoy and Scrempos are guys that you could see being good at some point if they develop right.
The rest are just leftovers.
Petersen wasn't recruiting these kids at BSU (except Browning) because none of them would ever go to BSU (except Ryphen). When Petersen moved up to UW in December 2013, he was at a significant disadvantage versus the other schools for 2014 and 2015 because the coaches at those schools had already formed relationships with the recruits. This was more evident from 2014, but all the super big-time guys in California probably knew Mora, Shaw, Helfrich, and Sark for 2+ years before Petersen even watched their film.
Then again, I don't think we'll have very much success with the super big-time guys in California with Petersen at the helm because almost all of those kids don't fit in with Petersen's philosophy. They're flashy and edgy and would never go to a church school like UW. That said, if Petersen can find the guys that are willing to commit to the program and work their assess off, we'll start to see more Sheltons and Kikahas and whatnot in our 2-deeps.
Also, your church school bullshit is just that: bullshit.
Kids like Tyler Vaughns and Trevon Sidney aren't church school kids.
If we don't beat USC, UCLA and Oregon for kids, we are absolutely fucked. If we don't keep kids like Eason home, we are absolutely fucked. There's no magic formula for the talent, it's simple: get the best kids in Washington, get 2-3 All West-Coast kids out of Cali, then get a good bit of the rest.
We are still in it this year for many kids who matter on that level and if we get none of them, our consolation prize is talking about why 3rd place in the North is still okay in year 5 of Pete.
Once you have that as a foundation: then Pete's system shit will kick in and we'll be able to win the North because we'll have the talent and the coaching, but make no fucking mistake... both are important. Coaching is more important ultimately, sure. But talent fucking matters. -
Like with all @Dennis_DeYoung poasts, I just pick one or two sentences to read and vote accordingly. This poast seems reasonable, but only god knows what's all in it.Dennis_DeYoung said:
Part of my faith in Pete's recruiting comes from Sidney Jones, Dante Pettis and Will Dissly. All these guys were not highly recruited, but played well as freshmen and were specifically targeted by Pete as guys who hadn't gotten big time offers, but who were good players.RoadDawg55 said:I think Kim's FS comments from when Peterman was hired have some inflating his recruiting results. Last year's class was sixth in the PAC 12 on 24/7 and 5th on Scout. That's right in the middle. It's pretty good, but other schools recruit good players too.
Obviously 1 year is not enough to make a judgment, but to the extent that there is any evidence at all, the evidence points to him doing well picking out players.
He certainly doesn't just offer and recruit every 4-star kid. He is selective and that shows even when he's offering kids that no one else likes.
I keep trashing the midget LBs, WR and Jordan Miller (who is fucking awful), but I do think he's not just crazy; there's something there he likes. His track record at Boise speaks for itself and when you combine that with what we saw out of guys like Jones, Pettis and Dissly last year, I think there's some evidence that his mid-tier guys can be trusted.
No one fucking wins a national championship with a bunch of mid tier guys, though. You get Natty's because you have the 3-stars that turn into Emptermanns and the 4 and 5 star kids are all really outstanding.
Our Natty team was filled with top-level recruits and depth players who were also top level recruits (this is their equivalent star ratings):
QB: Billy Joe Hobert - 4 (Mark Brunell - 4)
RB: Beno Bryant - 4 (Jay Berry - 4, Nip - 5)
FB: Matt Jones - 4 (Matt Jones - 4)
WR: Mario Bailey - 4
WR: Orlando McKay - 4
TE: Aaron Pierce - 4 (Mark Bruener - 5)
T: Kris Rongen - 3 (Andrew Peterson - 5)
G: Lincoln Kennedy - 5
C: Ed Cunningham - 4 (Frank Garcia - 3)
G: Pete Kaligis - 3
T: Siupeli Malamala - 4 (Tom Gallagher - 4)
DE: Donald Jones - 3 (Jamal Fountaine - 4)
DT: Stan Emptermann - 3 (D'Marco Farr - 4)
DT: Tyrone Rogers - 4 (Mike Lustyk - 5, Steve Hoffmann - 5)
DE: Andy Mason - 3
LB: Dave Hoffmann - 4/5 (James Clifford - 3/4)
LB: Jaime Fields - 3/4 (Hilary Butler - 4)
LB: Chico Fraley - 3/4 (Brett Collins - 3/4)
DB: Walter Bailey - 4 (William Doctor - 3/4)
DB: Dana Hall - 4
DB: Tommie Smith - 5 (Paxton Tailele - 4)
DB: Shane Pahukoa - 3 -
Decent rundown, but everyone knows Emptermann was an unranked 2 star.Dennis_DeYoung said:
Part of my faith in Pete's recruiting comes from Sidney Jones, Dante Pettis and Will Dissly. All these guys were not highly recruited, but played well as freshmen and were specifically targeted by Pete as guys who hadn't gotten big time offers, but who were good players.RoadDawg55 said:I think Kim's FS comments from when Peterman was hired have some inflating his recruiting results. Last year's class was sixth in the PAC 12 on 24/7 and 5th on Scout. That's right in the middle. It's pretty good, but other schools recruit good players too.
Obviously 1 year is not enough to make a judgment, but to the extent that there is any evidence at all, the evidence points to him doing well picking out players.
He certainly doesn't just offer and recruit every 4-star kid. He is selective and that shows even when he's offering kids that no one else likes.
I keep trashing the midget LBs, WR and Jordan Miller (who is fucking awful), but I do think he's not just crazy; there's something there he likes. His track record at Boise speaks for itself and when you combine that with what we saw out of guys like Jones, Pettis and Dissly last year, I think there's some evidence that his mid-tier guys can be trusted.
No one fucking wins a national championship with a bunch of mid tier guys, though. You get Natty's because you have the 3-stars that turn into Emptermanns and the 4 and 5 star kids are all really outstanding.
Our Natty team was filled with top-level recruits and depth players who were also top level recruits (this is their equivalent star ratings):
QB: Billy Joe Hobert - 4 (Mark Brunell - 4)
RB: Beno Bryant - 4 (Jay Berry - 4, Nip - 5)
FB: Matt Jones - 4 (Matt Jones - 4)
WR: Mario Bailey - 4
WR: Orlando McKay - 4
TE: Aaron Pierce - 4 (Mark Bruener - 5)
T: Kris Rongen - 3 (Andrew Peterson - 5)
G: Lincoln Kennedy - 5
C: Ed Cunningham - 4 (Frank Garcia - 3)
G: Pete Kaligis - 3
T: Siupeli Malamala - 4 (Tom Gallagher - 4)
DE: Donald Jones - 3 (Jamal Fountaine - 4)
DT: Stan Emptermann - 3 (D'Marco Farr - 4)
DT: Tyrone Rogers - 4 (Mike Lustyk - 5, Steve Hoffmann - 5)
DE: Andy Mason - 3
LB: Dave Hoffmann - 4/5 (James Clifford - 3/4)
LB: Jaime Fields - 3/4 (Hilary Butler - 4)
LB: Chico Fraley - 3/4 (Brett Collins - 3/4)
DB: Walter Bailey - 4 (William Doctor - 3/4)
DB: Dana Hall - 4
DB: Tommie Smith - 5 (Paxton Tailele - 4)
DB: Shane Pahukoa - 3 -
We already have verbals from 3 2016 kids that meet your criteria. So the results support the theory of increased time building relationships being a big factor.Dennis_DeYoung said:
So fucking what. Results or door ass out. Until we get 2-3 kids from Cali EVERY YEAR that have USC, UCLA and Oregon offers we are fucked.whatshouldicareabout said:
Keep in mind, coaches are recruiting these players for 2+ years now.Dennis_DeYoung said:
National powerhouse from two ~20th ranked classes? Surely you jest.AEB said:Of all the Pac-12 jobs, I believe Petersen when he says he really wanted UW and it was a good fit. Personality wise, Seattle suits him well and UW offers the opportunity to build a national powerhouse without compromising his personal wants. Whether he can do it remains to be seen. The early returns from the recruiting classes suggest
he might.he's good but not amazing at recruiting.
Not that rankings are everything, but we missed on Skinny Eason and lost out on every super big-time guy in Cali last year. Don't get me wrong, I like our recruiting classes, but BBK, Kyler Nanu, DJ Beavers and Andre Bacchanalia are not impressive kids.
We got like 6-8 kids last year that are the kind of kids we were getting in '88-'90: Gaskin, Renfro, McClatcher, Adams, Roberts, Potoa'e, Joyner... you could throw Browning and Neal in there if you were feeling generous. Outside of those guys, it's a fucking crapshoot and even inside those guys you're talking about an expectation of a 2/3 success rate.
Bartlett, Hilbers, McCoy and Scrempos are guys that you could see being good at some point if they develop right.
The rest are just leftovers.
Petersen wasn't recruiting these kids at BSU (except Browning) because none of them would ever go to BSU (except Ryphen). When Petersen moved up to UW in December 2013, he was at a significant disadvantage versus the other schools for 2014 and 2015 because the coaches at those schools had already formed relationships with the recruits. This was more evident from 2014, but all the super big-time guys in California probably knew Mora, Shaw, Helfrich, and Sark for 2+ years before Petersen even watched their film.
Then again, I don't think we'll have very much success with the super big-time guys in California with Petersen at the helm because almost all of those kids don't fit in with Petersen's philosophy. They're flashy and edgy and would never go to a church school like UW. That said, if Petersen can find the guys that are willing to commit to the program and work their assess off, we'll start to see more Sheltons and Kikahas and whatnot in our 2-deeps.
Also, your church school bullshit is just that: bullshit.
Kids like Tyler Vaughns and Trevon Sidney aren't church school kids.
If we don't beat USC, UCLA and Oregon for kids, we are absolutely fucked. If we don't keep kids like Eason home, we are absolutely fucked. There's no magic formula for the talent, it's simple: get the best kids in Washington, get 2-3 All West-Coast kids out of Cali, then get a good bit of the rest.
We are still in it this year for many kids who matter on that level and if we get none of them, our consolation prize is talking about why 3rd place in the North is still okay in year 5 of Pete.
Once you have that as a foundation: then Pete's system shit will kick in and we'll be able to win the North because we'll have the talent and the coaching, but make no fucking mistake... both are important. Coaching is more important ultimately, sure. But talent fucking matters. -
Thats a 3.9 average (yes fuck me I averaged it out) but I bet after this recruiting class you could build a two-deep with the same average or very close to it. Also I think a few of those are inflated. UW has never recruited in the top 2 of the conference. Are those 38 guys mostly in the same class or two?
One thing that has hurt us is the coaching changes within every 4-5 years which has resulted in unbalanced classes. The 2009 class killed us until 2013 when we had 4 good/full classes in a row (2012 was meh at the time, terrible now). Now we are working through the 2012 class yet are still affected by the transition year (2014).
If Scout doesn't inflate their grades anymore then the key is to recruit at +3.2/player consistently. The current class will likely be in the range of 3.3-3.4. Here is a quick way of looking at what these grades could mean:
3.2-3.3- Top 25 program, contending for conference title 1/2 every 5 years.
3.4-3.5- Chance to be a top 10 program most years (Oregon, Stanford have recruited at this level in recent years).
Pete's message is resonating but remember with 710 they asked him what we need to do to get the big recruits. Be better at football he said. If this program can start winning with 3.2-3.3 guys in the next few years then that can catalyze recruiting at a 3.4-3.5 level.
Over the next few years Pete will have to work his magic, develop guys and coach the team to 1-2 wins/year above the talent level. Thats how you quickly elevate recruiting to that 3.4-3.5 level. (This season that means 7-6 and top 45 SRS).
One thing is if they can match this current class (likely 3.3-3.4) in 2017, that would be a really good sign.
-
I did include the qualifier "might." Furthermore I'd take the last two recruiting classes versus any other consecutive classes for a very long time. The path to sustained power is long and requires a few 9 win seasons to establish credibility with the top end recruits. I think we are the path to winning 75-88% of our games which shortens the step to national power.Dennis_DeYoung said:
National powerhouse from two ~20th ranked classes? Surely you jest.AEB said:Of all the Pac-12 jobs, I believe Petersen when he says he really wanted UW and it was a good fit. Personality wise, Seattle suits him well and UW offers the opportunity to build a national powerhouse without compromising his personal wants. Whether he can do it remains to be seen. The early returns from the recruiting classes suggest
he might.he's good but not amazing at recruiting.
Not that rankings are everything, but we missed on Skinny Eason and lost out on every super big-time guy in Cali last year. Don't get me wrong, I like our recruiting classes, but BBK, Kyler Nanu, DJ Beavers and Andre Bacchanalia are not impressive kids.
We got like 6-8 kids last year that are the kind of kids we were getting in '88-'90: Gaskin, Renfro, McClatcher, Adams, Roberts, Potoa'e, Joyner... you could throw Browning and Neal in there if you were feeling generous. Outside of those guys, it's a fucking crapshoot and even inside those guys you're talking about an expectation of a 2/3 success rate.
Bartlett, Hilbers, McCoy and Scrempos are guys that you could see being good at some point if they develop right.
The rest are just leftovers. -
According to your Y-axis, what's the nation's -10th ranked recruiting class like?HeretoBeatmyChest said: -
Last 2 years, 10th to 15th were around 3.5.
-
Petersen's right in the sense that there is no shortcut. Part of what it will take to get better recruits is to do better with the ones that you currently have. Do that and you'll get better players wanting to play for you.
He's able to pull some solid players in right now because he can use his track record at Boise as a sign that he and his staff (and don't underestimate the continuity of his staff as well) know what they are doing. Once he proves that he has UW in a position to compete for conference championships (and ultimately on the national scale) at Washington, the talented players will be lining up wanting to come here. -
I was gonna say this was the POTD but then I read your response to @Tequilla and spit out my beverage. Well done sir.Dennis_DeYoung said:
Part of my faith in Pete's recruiting comes from Sidney Jones, Dante Pettis and Will Dissly. All these guys were not highly recruited, but played well as freshmen and were specifically targeted by Pete as guys who hadn't gotten big time offers, but who were good players.RoadDawg55 said:I think Kim's FS comments from when Peterman was hired have some inflating his recruiting results. Last year's class was sixth in the PAC 12 on 24/7 and 5th on Scout. That's right in the middle. It's pretty good, but other schools recruit good players too.
Obviously 1 year is not enough to make a judgment, but to the extent that there is any evidence at all, the evidence points to him doing well picking out players.
He certainly doesn't just offer and recruit every 4-star kid. He is selective and that shows even when he's offering kids that no one else likes.
I keep trashing the midget LBs, WR and Jordan Miller (who is fucking awful), but I do think he's not just crazy; there's something there he likes. His track record at Boise speaks for itself and when you combine that with what we saw out of guys like Jones, Pettis and Dissly last year, I think there's some evidence that his mid-tier guys can be trusted.
No one fucking wins a national championship with a bunch of mid tier guys, though. You get Natty's because you have the 3-stars that turn into Emptermanns and the 4 and 5 star kids are all really outstanding.
Our Natty team was filled with top-level recruits and depth players who were also top level recruits (this is their equivalent star ratings):
QB: Billy Joe Hobert - 4 (Mark Brunell - 4)
RB: Beno Bryant - 4 (Jay Berry - 4, Nip - 5)
FB: Matt Jones - 4 (Matt Jones - 4)
WR: Mario Bailey - 4
WR: Orlando McKay - 4
TE: Aaron Pierce - 4 (Mark Bruener - 5)
T: Kris Rongen - 3 (Andrew Peterson - 5)
G: Lincoln Kennedy - 5
C: Ed Cunningham - 4 (Frank Garcia - 3)
G: Pete Kaligis - 3
T: Siupeli Malamala - 4 (Tom Gallagher - 4)
DE: Donald Jones - 3 (Jamal Fountaine - 4)
DT: Stan Emptermann - 3 (D'Marco Farr - 4)
DT: Tyrone Rogers - 4 (Mike Lustyk - 5, Steve Hoffmann - 5)
DE: Andy Mason - 3
LB: Dave Hoffmann - 4/5 (James Clifford - 3/4)
LB: Jaime Fields - 3/4 (Hilary Butler - 4)
LB: Chico Fraley - 3/4 (Brett Collins - 3/4)
DB: Walter Bailey - 4 (William Doctor - 3/4)
DB: Dana Hall - 4
DB: Tommie Smith - 5 (Paxton Tailele - 4)
DB: Shane Pahukoa - 3 -
@HeretoBeatmyChest's poast was a little difficult for me to decipher, but suffice it to say that we ALMOST never recruited above UCLA and USC (I think in '88 we were ahead of 1 of them). And third is always where we want to be. This 5th shit is a disaster. Oregon is basically always third now and what we used to be. Now we battle fucking Stanford and ASU.
Close the fucking program down. Fuck.
Anyway, the point I was making is that you have to have last year's class as an 'average' class and ones above that where you produce some superstars to contend for Nattys. Like, if we'd gotten Skinny this year, bam—there you go—superstar.
We don't have a fucking superstar on our radar this year, we just have some decent players (outside of guys like Lawrence and Juarez who are a million to one). Next year it's Sarrell and Ahmed in-state. We better fucking get them.
It's no big deal if Tommie Smith never becomes an All-America so long as guys like Mario Bailey does. Same thing with Kasen's class. He never became an All-America, but Marcus Peters did, so no sweat.
What you need is All Pac-12 players at every position, then some All-Americans. My suspicion is this isn't the year we'll see that. -
Is it too late to change the HH slogan that was just revealed?Dennis_DeYoung said:Close the fucking program down. Fuck.
-
What if Browning is that superstar instead of Skinny Eason?Dennis_DeYoung said:@HeretoBeatmyChest's poast was a little difficult for me to decipher, but suffice it to say that we ALMOST never recruited above UCLA and USC (I think in '88 we were ahead of 1 of them). And third is always where we want to be. This 5th shit is a disaster. Oregon is basically always third now and what we used to be. Now we battle fucking Stanford and ASU.
Close the fucking program down. Fuck.
Anyway, the point I was making is that you have to have last year's class as an 'average' class and ones above that where you produce some superstars to contend for Nattys. Like, if we'd gotten Skinny this year, bam—there you go—superstar.
We don't have a fucking superstar on our radar this year, we just have some decent players (outside of guys like Lawrence and Juarez who are a million to one). Next year it's Sarrell and Ahmed in-state. We better fucking get them.
It's no big deal if Tommie Smith never becomes an All-America so long as guys like Mario Bailey does. Same thing with Kasen's class. He never became an All-America, but Marcus Peters did, so no sweat.
What you need is All Pac-12 players at every position, then some All-Americans. My suspicion is this isn't the year we'll see that.
I dont think we disagree...last years class was good but it needs to be a base and we cant drop below it. This year we will surpass that..even though losing Eason hurts. -
We just took Aaron Fuller. It's over for this year.HeretoBeatmyChest said:
What if Browning is that superstar instead of Skinny Eason?Dennis_DeYoung said:@HeretoBeatmyChest's poast was a little difficult for me to decipher, but suffice it to say that we ALMOST never recruited above UCLA and USC (I think in '88 we were ahead of 1 of them). And third is always where we want to be. This 5th shit is a disaster. Oregon is basically always third now and what we used to be. Now we battle fucking Stanford and ASU.
Close the fucking program down. Fuck.
Anyway, the point I was making is that you have to have last year's class as an 'average' class and ones above that where you produce some superstars to contend for Nattys. Like, if we'd gotten Skinny this year, bam—there you go—superstar.
We don't have a fucking superstar on our radar this year, we just have some decent players (outside of guys like Lawrence and Juarez who are a million to one). Next year it's Sarrell and Ahmed in-state. We better fucking get them.
It's no big deal if Tommie Smith never becomes an All-America so long as guys like Mario Bailey does. Same thing with Kasen's class. He never became an All-America, but Marcus Peters did, so no sweat.
What you need is All Pac-12 players at every position, then some All-Americans. My suspicion is this isn't the year we'll see that.
I dont think we disagree...last years class was good but it needs to be a base and we cant drop below it. This year we will surpass that..even though losing Eason hurts. -
So I think most everyone agrees. We need to get to #3 in the Pac 12 in recruiting. We need Peterman to figure his offense the fuck out, preferably soon. And we need Browning (don't bring up Carta Samuels) to be great because Eason isn't coming.
-
RoadDawg55 said:
So I think most everyone agrees. We need to get to #3 in the Pac 12 in recruiting. We need Peterman to figure his offense the fuck out, preferably soon. And we need Browning (don't bring up Carta Samuels) to be great because Eason isn't coming.
-
First of all Dennis, I'll wait for purpledoogfan's analysis before coming to an opinion. But yes, this roster still badly lacks a #1 WR.
If we average 3.25-3.40 (stars per player) every year then we'll be in very good shape. -
For me, the shitty players from last year will tell me a lot. The BBKs, the Beaverses, the Bacchanalias... if those guys are good, then I will be surprised, mystified and teary-eyed.HeretoBeatmyChest said:First of all Dennis, I'll wait for purpledoogfan's analysis before coming to an opinion. But yes, this roster still badly lacks a #1 WR.
If we average 3.25-3.40 (stars per player) every year then we'll be in very good shape.
If not, I'm going to bomb Lucas, TX. -
I'd be surprised if you knew where Lucas, TX was before today
