Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

RESULTS: 3rd Annual Jesse Callier Post-Collegiate Impact Ranking

2456712

Comments

  • Swaye
    Swaye Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 41,741 Founders Club
    NEsnake12 said:

    I'm impressed by how many people took this seriously and didn't just try to fuck with the results.

    Very true. I really believed Eldrenkamp was a 5, and Psalm was a 1. In my core.
  • RoadDawg55
    RoadDawg55 Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 30,521 Swaye's Wigwam

    Petersen has, thus far, been able to bring Sark's players up to their star rating, and bring his own players beyond their star rating.

    It will be interesting to see what happens over the next few years, as the Drew Samples, Ricky McCoys, and Andrew Baccelias have become Hunter Bryants, Marlon Tuialatpus and Ty Jones's

    Not that Baccelia looks terrible, but does anyone see him ever doing anything of note?

    I can't see him catching more than 15 balls. He's the only player on UW I saw play in high school and I didn't even realize he was on the team until weeks later when I looked at UW's recruiting class. I think he caught one ball for 6 yards in the game I went to.
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457



    One thing that is becoming abundantly clear in doing this, and basically having all of Sark's players through at this point (2013 class is more Pete's now since he's been with them longer than Sark), is that Pete just doesn't have as much shit in his classes like Sark does. Even Sark's 2013 class has had a good amount of attrition, but Pete is getting a lot out of the lower end guys. And going forward, Pete's classes are looking fucking impressive, his 2014 class (transition class) already has a 5, and a near 5.

    First I'd like to thank those that did this. I don't agree with everything but I also don't pay as much attention as a lot of you.

    That being said. Right there is exactly what I've been saying and fucktards like Cowherd don't see. Sark made a lot of noise in recruiting and even generated buzz. But I totally think he recruited from Scout's website and did not care about players mental makeup. To make it worse, he supported their shitty attitudes and let it perpetuate. Not to mention he'd put off the recruits that have their heads on straight cause his salesman bullshit.

    Pete brings in the right attitude and let's recruits know right away he's serious about it before they commit.

    This survey confirms what most of us already knew. Not only could Sark not develop players, but many just didn't produce and stick around. This leads to larger recruiting classes which leads to higher rankings on paper. Which of course leads to the off season natty.

    Where Pete keeps the players and they even contribute in subtle ways (see Lindquist, Jeff). He isn't 100%, but the fact we only have 14-16 slots open even with several under classman leaving early shows how well he's kept the talent. Which means more seniors contributing, not burning redshirts, etc.
  • Houhusky
    Houhusky Member Posts: 5,537
    edited January 2017

    In what universe is Sidney not a fucking 5?

    10 years from now my syphilitic riddled mush of a mind will remember Ossai, Center and Buttah Baker... Not sydney jones.

    Jones was amazing, Im not saying he wasn't a pivotal part of this years team and a possible future pro bowl player, but to me, part of being a 5 star was would they be remembered by casual faggy fans 5-8 years from now for their impact...

    I also did this while drunk, so, w/e
  • chuck
    chuck Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 11,830 Swaye's Wigwam

    Mad_Son said:

    I got a shoutout!

    I like to ejaculate to Mathis' potential as much as anyone but he was a 1 up until this year.

    His three conference games before breaking his feet (allegedly) get him to a 2.

    If he had played at the level he did against Stanford for a whole season he might have gotten to a 4.

    If he payed at that level. He might have been an all american candidate. He was a monster at the stanford and the oregon game.
    Yeah, if he played all year he was a 5. As far as I am concerned this isn't about your entire career but your maximum contribution (over some nebulous amount of time). Just because you're on the bench for a long time doesn't mean you don't later become an essential part of the team.

    Gardenhire getting passed is a testament to how good others are, not a lack of contribution from him. Gardenhire was good last year hence the 4.
    It has to be the player's total contribution. Which IMO takes into account both peak and duration. Something like WAR for baseball nerds out there.

    I don't give a 5 out unless someone was at a First/Second All-Conference level for at least two seasons.

    No shame in the 4 category. Not everyone can be Buddah or Sid MF Jones.
    Mathis didn't contribute much cumulatively but did turn into a really good player. That's worth a couple of points. I can't remember if I gave him 3 or 4 but I can live with either.

    I know that goes against the way most others others rate them for this exercise. It does go against the title itself (career impact rating). Fuck off though. My way makes sense to me.