Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
ESPN plagarisms Coker's Jesse Callier Initiative
GrundleStiltzkin
Member Posts: 61,516 
1. Washington
Here is a list of some major contributors to the Huskies’ College Football Playoff team: S Budda Baker, DL Vita Vea, WR Dante Pettis, CB Sidney Jones, S JoJo McIntosh, DL Greg Gaines. They were part of the same class and back then only Baker was considered a top-300 player. Safe to say this group turned out to be much, much better than No. 7 in the Pac-12 and No. 45 nationally. Baker and Jones declared for the NFL draft, while Vea and Pettis also had reason to consider an early jump.
Comments
-
ESPN reads this bored
-
Gaines once again overlooked
-
Sources said:
GainesKaleb McGary once again overlooked -
RaceBannon said:
ESPNreadsTed Miller relies on this bored -
So Petersen's first class, which he had 2 months to throw together ended up being the top group in the pac 12.
Mother of God
-
most of those guys were coming to UW either way, sark did the dirty work, Petersen just reaped the benefits.bananasnblondes said:So Petersen's first class, which he had 2 months to throw together ended up being the top group in the pac 12.
Mother of God
Budda for example was going to flip no matter what.
-
It makes no sense to "re rank" recruiting classes. They are ranked at the time because they generally reflect how badly the players were wanted during that recruiting cycle.
Sure, some kids are underrated, etc, but in general star averages are good approximations of how well you did vs your competitors.
Everything else is coaching. -
ESPN is your source
-
I'm surprised to see DDY make such a silly argument. I guess he's indeed drinking again.Dennis_DeYoung said:It makes no sense to "re rank" recruiting classes. They are ranked at the time because they generally reflect how badly the players were wanted during that recruiting cycle.
Sure, some kids are underrated, etc, but in general star averages are good approximations of how well you did vs your competitors.
Everything else is coaching.
It makes no sense to NOT rerank classes based on performance, that's how you know if your evaluation processes are working or not.
Pete's are.
The problem with relying on stars because they reflect interest is that there are differences in how coaches evaluate. Pete watched the same film as USC on pili, you don't think it makes sense to check in in a few years to see who was right? -
Sound reason and balanced comments won't get you far around here! Watch yourself!doogville said:
I'm surprised to see DDY make such a silly argument. I guess he's indeed drinking again.
It makes no sense to NOT rerank classes based on performance, that's how you know if your evaluation processes are working or not.
Pete's are.
The problem with relying on stars because they reflect interest is that there are differences in how coaches evaluate. Pete watched the same film as USC on pili, you don't think it makes sense to check in in a few years to see who was right?
Consider yourself warned. Do it again and you are gone. No warning.....just gone.
