Things you should keep in mind about recruiting

IPukeOregonGrellow said:

The key is finding five-star LA kids who have to leave the area because the Crips have a hit out on them like De'Anthony Thomas. While hoping it outnumbers your own five-star kids who quickly need Canadian citizenship.

IPukeOregonGrellow said:

The key is finding five-star LA kids who have to leave the area because the Crips have a hit out on them like De'Anthony Thomas. While hoping it outnumbers your own five-star kids who quickly need Canadian citizenship.

whuggy said:

Tequilla said:

I can't chincredible @Dennis_DeYoung's post enough ...

More to the point I think it's important to look at the composition of the classes under Pete since 2014 to understand how we're recruiting. I think the key takeaway from Dennis is that our ability to recruit LA is pretty much an effort in futility ... we need to put the work in down there "just in case" we get lucky and are able to pull somebody out ... particularly when USC/UCLA recruit outside of LA.

In both the 2016 and 2017 classes, UW took 18 players. The expectation in the 2018 class is that we'll take around 18 as well. Pete stated during the Signing Day press conference that classes between 15-20 are the desired levels going forward. And given that we don't have significant attrition, it's realistic that more often than not we will be in this range going forward.

What follows is a look of our recruits by location during Pete's tenure:

2014 Class (23 total)

California: 16
Washington: 5
Idaho: 1
Wyoming: 1

2015 Class (25 total)

California: 13
Washington: 8
Oregon: 1
Idaho: 1
Texas: 1
Wyoming: 1

2016 Class (18 total)

California: 8
Washington: 5
Texas: 2
Arizona: 2
Oregon: 1

2017 Class (18 total)

California: 7
Washington: 6
Oregon: 2
Utah: 2
Australia: 1

So if you think about it going forward from the standpoint of "how do we get to 18 scholarships each year," you're looking at 5 to 8 recruits per year coming from the State of Washington. I think the 7-8 recruits that we have gotten out of California in the 2016 and 2017 classes is probably more representative going forward of what it is that we're looking for. As Dennis noted in going through what we've pulled out of California, the 2014 and 2015 classes we needed numbers and a lot of the guys that we got out of California we're guys that were lower tier guys that we were recruiting against the bottom half of the conference ... THESE ARE GUYS WE DON'T WANT GOING FORWARD. So thinking of the half dozen or so guys we need to get from California going forward, you're probably looking at 2/3 of the guys we're getting coming out of the Bay Area and the other half coming out of SoCal and largely Orange County (which when you think about it, Orange County on the whole probably fits best the type of kid/family where our messaging is going to resonate the best with).

Outside of California and Washington, we haven't taken any more than 2 recruits in a year from any other location. As long as Oregon is a dumpster fire, we should have an expectation of being able to pull a recruit from there. If there are any strong recruits in Idaho or Montana we should be in a good position to get them. It's important for us to have at least some kind of presence in Arizona and Texas to at least make sure that we are gauging interest and capitalizing if we can find someone that is receptive to our message. The area where we have been really poor on recently is in Hawaii ... we need to figure out how to make inroads there. There's emerging numbers of talent in Utah and that's becoming a very competitive location for recruits. And of course, there's always random locations where we'll get interest from someone that plays itself out.

But the reality is that as long as we're really going after 18 on a consistent basis, the balance of our recruiting is centered on keeping the elite in-state kids home (should happen relatively easily with our success continuing) and maintaining our foot print in the areas of California where we've been successful. We need to focus on making sure we get a strong recruiting option to replace Hamden and eventually Lake. Whenever the 10th assistant coach gets approved by the NCAA we need to make sure that we're hiring a heavy recruiter in that position to help us in continuing to build networks and relationships to be able to get that random elite player from here or there that wants to go to UW. Our biggest risk is forgetting what makes us successful from a recruiting standpoint. What we have right now is largely sustainable IMO.

This is a very good post Tequila and I agree with
most of it. My small disagreement is with the ideal
class number. 17-19 every year indicates stability
but not necessarily quality. I would rather see 22-23
with 4 or 5 going early NFL entry or 4 star players
transferring due to lack of playing time. That's when
you know you've arrived at USC, Alabama talent level.

whuggy said:

Bama usually is in the 25 a year range. Tell you what though.
USC is typically around 20. I would be thrilled with
classes of 20 anywhere near SC quality.

WeakarmCobra said:

whuggy said:

Bama usually is in the 25 a year range. Tell you what though.
USC is typically around 20. I would be thrilled with
classes of 20 anywhere near SC quality.

Bama has huge attrition because of playing time and players being told to leave.
I doubt we can recruit on SC level on consistent basis, we might have year once in a while that is on that level.

YellowSnow said:

So if I am looking through the O-line prospects on Scout or similar site, and see a guy like Steven Jones, a black OT in Temecula, it is safe to assume we have no chance, correct?

Dennis_DeYoung said:

YellowSnow said:

So if I am looking through the O-line prospects on Scout or similar site, and see a guy like Steven Jones, a black OT in Temecula, it is safe to assume we have no chance, correct?

Less Than Zero

whuggy said:

Tequilla said:

I can't chincredible @Dennis_DeYoung's post enough ...

More to the point I think it's important to look at the composition of the classes under Pete since 2014 to understand how we're recruiting. I think the key takeaway from Dennis is that our ability to recruit LA is pretty much an effort in futility ... we need to put the work in down there "just in case" we get lucky and are able to pull somebody out ... particularly when USC/UCLA recruit outside of LA.

In both the 2016 and 2017 classes, UW took 18 players. The expectation in the 2018 class is that we'll take around 18 as well. Pete stated during the Signing Day press conference that classes between 15-20 are the desired levels going forward. And given that we don't have significant attrition, it's realistic that more often than not we will be in this range going forward.

What follows is a look of our recruits by location during Pete's tenure:

2014 Class (23 total)

California: 16
Washington: 5
Idaho: 1
Wyoming: 1

2015 Class (25 total)

California: 13
Washington: 8
Oregon: 1
Idaho: 1
Texas: 1
Wyoming: 1

2016 Class (18 total)

California: 8
Washington: 5
Texas: 2
Arizona: 2
Oregon: 1

2017 Class (18 total)

California: 7
Washington: 6
Oregon: 2
Utah: 2
Australia: 1

So if you think about it going forward from the standpoint of "how do we get to 18 scholarships each year," you're looking at 5 to 8 recruits per year coming from the State of Washington. I think the 7-8 recruits that we have gotten out of California in the 2016 and 2017 classes is probably more representative going forward of what it is that we're looking for. As Dennis noted in going through what we've pulled out of California, the 2014 and 2015 classes we needed numbers and a lot of the guys that we got out of California we're guys that were lower tier guys that we were recruiting against the bottom half of the conference ... THESE ARE GUYS WE DON'T WANT GOING FORWARD. So thinking of the half dozen or so guys we need to get from California going forward, you're probably looking at 2/3 of the guys we're getting coming out of the Bay Area and the other half coming out of SoCal and largely Orange County (which when you think about it, Orange County on the whole probably fits best the type of kid/family where our messaging is going to resonate the best with).

Outside of California and Washington, we haven't taken any more than 2 recruits in a year from any other location. As long as Oregon is a dumpster fire, we should have an expectation of being able to pull a recruit from there. If there are any strong recruits in Idaho or Montana we should be in a good position to get them. It's important for us to have at least some kind of presence in Arizona and Texas to at least make sure that we are gauging interest and capitalizing if we can find someone that is receptive to our message. The area where we have been really poor on recently is in Hawaii ... we need to figure out how to make inroads there. There's emerging numbers of talent in Utah and that's becoming a very competitive location for recruits. And of course, there's always random locations where we'll get interest from someone that plays itself out.

But the reality is that as long as we're really going after 18 on a consistent basis, the balance of our recruiting is centered on keeping the elite in-state kids home (should happen relatively easily with our success continuing) and maintaining our foot print in the areas of California where we've been successful. We need to focus on making sure we get a strong recruiting option to replace Hamden and eventually Lake. Whenever the 10th assistant coach gets approved by the NCAA we need to make sure that we're hiring a heavy recruiter in that position to help us in continuing to build networks and relationships to be able to get that random elite player from here or there that wants to go to UW. Our biggest risk is forgetting what makes us successful from a recruiting standpoint. What we have right now is largely sustainable IMO.

This is a very good post Tequila and I agree with
most of it. My small disagreement is with the ideal
class number. 17-19 every year indicates stability
but not necessarily quality. I would rather see 22-23
with 4 or 5 going early NFL entry or 4 star players
transferring due to lack of playing time. That's when
you know you've arrived at USC, Alabama talent level.

Tequilla said:

whuggy said:

Tequilla said:

I can't chincredible @Dennis_DeYoung's post enough ...

More to the point I think it's important to look at the composition of the classes under Pete since 2014 to understand how we're recruiting. I think the key takeaway from Dennis is that our ability to recruit LA is pretty much an effort in futility ... we need to put the work in down there "just in case" we get lucky and are able to pull somebody out ... particularly when USC/UCLA recruit outside of LA.

In both the 2016 and 2017 classes, UW took 18 players. The expectation in the 2018 class is that we'll take around 18 as well. Pete stated during the Signing Day press conference that classes between 15-20 are the desired levels going forward. And given that we don't have significant attrition, it's realistic that more often than not we will be in this range going forward.

What follows is a look of our recruits by location during Pete's tenure:

2014 Class (23 total)

California: 16
Washington: 5
Idaho: 1
Wyoming: 1

2015 Class (25 total)

California: 13
Washington: 8
Oregon: 1
Idaho: 1
Texas: 1
Wyoming: 1

2016 Class (18 total)

California: 8
Washington: 5
Texas: 2
Arizona: 2
Oregon: 1

2017 Class (18 total)

California: 7
Washington: 6
Oregon: 2
Utah: 2
Australia: 1

So if you think about it going forward from the standpoint of "how do we get to 18 scholarships each year," you're looking at 5 to 8 recruits per year coming from the State of Washington. I think the 7-8 recruits that we have gotten out of California in the 2016 and 2017 classes is probably more representative going forward of what it is that we're looking for. As Dennis noted in going through what we've pulled out of California, the 2014 and 2015 classes we needed numbers and a lot of the guys that we got out of California we're guys that were lower tier guys that we were recruiting against the bottom half of the conference ... THESE ARE GUYS WE DON'T WANT GOING FORWARD. So thinking of the half dozen or so guys we need to get from California going forward, you're probably looking at 2/3 of the guys we're getting coming out of the Bay Area and the other half coming out of SoCal and largely Orange County (which when you think about it, Orange County on the whole probably fits best the type of kid/family where our messaging is going to resonate the best with).

Outside of California and Washington, we haven't taken any more than 2 recruits in a year from any other location. As long as Oregon is a dumpster fire, we should have an expectation of being able to pull a recruit from there. If there are any strong recruits in Idaho or Montana we should be in a good position to get them. It's important for us to have at least some kind of presence in Arizona and Texas to at least make sure that we are gauging interest and capitalizing if we can find someone that is receptive to our message. The area where we have been really poor on recently is in Hawaii ... we need to figure out how to make inroads there. There's emerging numbers of talent in Utah and that's becoming a very competitive location for recruits. And of course, there's always random locations where we'll get interest from someone that plays itself out.

But the reality is that as long as we're really going after 18 on a consistent basis, the balance of our recruiting is centered on keeping the elite in-state kids home (should happen relatively easily with our success continuing) and maintaining our foot print in the areas of California where we've been successful. We need to focus on making sure we get a strong recruiting option to replace Hamden and eventually Lake. Whenever the 10th assistant coach gets approved by the NCAA we need to make sure that we're hiring a heavy recruiter in that position to help us in continuing to build networks and relationships to be able to get that random elite player from here or there that wants to go to UW. Our biggest risk is forgetting what makes us successful from a recruiting standpoint. What we have right now is largely sustainable IMO.

This is a very good post Tequila and I agree with
most of it. My small disagreement is with the ideal
class number. 17-19 every year indicates stability
but not necessarily quality. I would rather see 22-23
with 4 or 5 going early NFL entry or 4 star players
transferring due to lack of playing time. That's when
you know you've arrived at USC, Alabama talent level.

You are probably right that 18 per year over a 5 class cycle doesn't add up because you are looking at only 90 total recruits over that cycle. I do think that you are right that on average we'll probably end up with 3-5 players leaving early each year ... but it's not a guarantee.

What I do think is promising is take guys like Damion Turpin last year and even Andrew Hudson in prior years that really flashed in their last year in the program as a (significant) contributor ... it proves that the Don James logic that a 5th year senior is more valuable than a true freshman playing is a theory held by Pete as well.

If you just look at the numbers in the 2014 and 2015 classes we could be back on the market for a fairly decent sized class coming up in the next year or two. I haven't plotted out our depth chart that far ahead of the game yet ... but I also think that if Pete had his way we'd be looking at a consistent number (whatever that number is) class to class versus huge variable levels.

I'm beginning to be convinced that when we need to expand to get to a class of about 25 there's a good chance that the back 5 players in our class very likely will be JAGs ... 20 is probably our maximum number where we can expect all 20 to be high caliber players.