Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
CGTP, DDY, TLDR, a Q????
Comments
-
Or would you rather explain Sloppy Tits to your AD?DerekJohnson said:
One of these days I know I'm going find myself alone in an elevator with Steve Pool and have to explain this.89ute said:
This is what I'm looking for @Tequilla. When you guys take the field this fall, you will have 28 guys on the roster who were 4*s.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:
There are no 5 stars on the roster.89ute said:Another question for the fine gentlemen of TSIO. Now that NSD is over, how many 4 and 5 stars are there on your roster?
When the 2017 class arrives on campus we will have 28 active four stars. And from 2013-2017 we signed 38 in total.
@Tequilla remember your comment I think two podcasts ago, Clemson had 46 4*s on their roster, making the case that this is what it takes to be a championship caliber team.
I'd be interested in this stat for each Pac-12 team if you have an easy way to figure it out.
Please don't
-
That would be easier to explain than the Steve Pool meme, which makes little sense even when fully explained.89ute said:
Or would you rather explain Sloppy Tits to your AD?DerekJohnson said:
One of these days I know I'm going find myself alone in an elevator with Steve Pool and have to explain this.89ute said:
This is what I'm looking for @Tequilla. When you guys take the field this fall, you will have 28 guys on the roster who were 4*s.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:
There are no 5 stars on the roster.89ute said:Another question for the fine gentlemen of TSIO. Now that NSD is over, how many 4 and 5 stars are there on your roster?
When the 2017 class arrives on campus we will have 28 active four stars. And from 2013-2017 we signed 38 in total.
@Tequilla remember your comment I think two podcasts ago, Clemson had 46 4*s on their roster, making the case that this is what it takes to be a championship caliber team.
I'd be interested in this stat for each Pac-12 team if you have an easy way to figure it out.
Please don't -
Yeah, I'm still a little confused. Does it mean - I can't provide a link because I watched it live or - look it up yourself, or both?DerekJohnson said:
That would be easier to explain than the Steve Pool meme, which makes little sense even when fully explained.89ute said:
Or would you rather explain Sloppy Tits to your AD?DerekJohnson said:
One of these days I know I'm going find myself alone in an elevator with Steve Pool and have to explain this.89ute said:
This is what I'm looking for @Tequilla. When you guys take the field this fall, you will have 28 guys on the roster who were 4*s.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:
There are no 5 stars on the roster.89ute said:Another question for the fine gentlemen of TSIO. Now that NSD is over, how many 4 and 5 stars are there on your roster?
When the 2017 class arrives on campus we will have 28 active four stars. And from 2013-2017 we signed 38 in total.
@Tequilla remember your comment I think two podcasts ago, Clemson had 46 4*s on their roster, making the case that this is what it takes to be a championship caliber team.
I'd be interested in this stat for each Pac-12 team if you have an easy way to figure it out.
Please don't -
yes89ute said:
Yeah, I'm still a little confused. Does it mean - I can't provide a link because I watched it live or - look it up yourself, or both?DerekJohnson said:
That would be easier to explain than the Steve Pool meme, which makes little sense even when fully explained.89ute said:
Or would you rather explain Sloppy Tits to your AD?DerekJohnson said:
One of these days I know I'm going find myself alone in an elevator with Steve Pool and have to explain this.89ute said:
This is what I'm looking for @Tequilla. When you guys take the field this fall, you will have 28 guys on the roster who were 4*s.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:
There are no 5 stars on the roster.89ute said:Another question for the fine gentlemen of TSIO. Now that NSD is over, how many 4 and 5 stars are there on your roster?
When the 2017 class arrives on campus we will have 28 active four stars. And from 2013-2017 we signed 38 in total.
@Tequilla remember your comment I think two podcasts ago, Clemson had 46 4*s on their roster, making the case that this is what it takes to be a championship caliber team.
I'd be interested in this stat for each Pac-12 team if you have an easy way to figure it out.
Please don't -
@89ute The furthest I could go back for Cal was the 2010 class (not the prime of the Tedford years...), but that was the first year we started tracking this data for the rest of the conference. Cal's breakdown from 2010-2012 (Dykes took over in 2013) was:
0/1 star: 2
2 star: 4
3 star: 31
4 star: 16
5 star: 3 -
One last set... this is for all Pac12 schools between 2013-2017 classes. This includes all players (except for transfers)... not just active.
-
That flicked the head of my doogboner, thanks.MrsPetersen said:One last set... this is for all Pac12 schools between 2013-2017 classes. This includes all players (except for transfers)... not just active.
-
When I see this it makes me realize we still have a lot of room for improvement. It also really pounds home the point that UCLA sucks enormous donkey nuts. They are just a cunt hair behind USC. It's sort of unreal how you can fuck up that much talent. It's like Mora is trying to suck.MrsPetersen said:Ok here is the whole Pac recruiting breakdown by stars. This is players that are actively on the roster. If they left, I filtered them out.
Cc: @CokeGreaterThanPepsi , @89ute
Also, we are right in the mix with Oregon and Stanford on a clear second tier. The trick will be getting in between tiers where we pull away from Tree and Oregon, and get within striking distance of USC/UCLA (not going to catch them ever).
-
UCLA is the biggest fraud ever and their only Heisman winner won because of racism. True Story. @BallSackedSwaye said:
When I see this it makes me realize we still have a lot of room for improvement. It also really pounds home the point that UCLA sucks enormous donkey nuts. They are just a cunt hair behind USC. It's sort of unreal how you can fuck up that much talent. It's like Mora is trying to suck.MrsPetersen said:Ok here is the whole Pac recruiting breakdown by stars. This is players that are actively on the roster. If they left, I filtered them out.
Cc: @CokeGreaterThanPepsi , @89ute
Also, we are right in the mix with Oregon and Stanford on a clear second tier. The trick will be getting in between tiers where we pull away from Tree and Oregon, and get within striking distance of USC/UCLA (not going to catch them ever). -
Seriously. That is Climpson level recruiting there, and only eclipsed by Michigan, Ohio State, Bama and USC (barely). UCLA has absolutely no excuse for not being in the PAC12 conversation every year. Except their coaching sucks. Ass.Dennis_DeYoung said:
UCLA is the biggest fraud ever and their only Heisman winner won because of racism. True Story. @BallSackedSwaye said:
When I see this it makes me realize we still have a lot of room for improvement. It also really pounds home the point that UCLA sucks enormous donkey nuts. They are just a cunt hair behind USC. It's sort of unreal how you can fuck up that much talent. It's like Mora is trying to suck.MrsPetersen said:Ok here is the whole Pac recruiting breakdown by stars. This is players that are actively on the roster. If they left, I filtered them out.
Cc: @CokeGreaterThanPepsi , @89ute
Also, we are right in the mix with Oregon and Stanford on a clear second tier. The trick will be getting in between tiers where we pull away from Tree and Oregon, and get within striking distance of USC/UCLA (not going to catch them ever). -
This is the data we talked about in one of our recent pods in comparison to how Clemson got built up to what they are now. The 2018 class when it signs will mark the end of the Sark years, and we are likely to have signed around 40 or so 4 stars from 2014-2018 under Pete.MrsPetersen said:One last set... this is for all Pac12 schools between 2013-2017 classes. This includes all players (except for transfers)... not just active.
-
One question Colonel
Do we get to win the playoffs this time? -
To be fair and more insulting. It doesn't matter who the coach is. Last Natty was '54, Heisman Beban won only because people wanted a white guy over OJ.Swaye said:
Seriously. That is Climpson level recruiting there, and only eclipsed by Michigan, Ohio State, Bama and USC (barely). UCLA has absolutely no excuse for not being in the PAC12 conversation every year. Except their coaching sucks. Ass.Dennis_DeYoung said:
UCLA is the biggest fraud ever and their only Heisman winner won because of racism. True Story. @BallSackedSwaye said:
When I see this it makes me realize we still have a lot of room for improvement. It also really pounds home the point that UCLA sucks enormous donkey nuts. They are just a cunt hair behind USC. It's sort of unreal how you can fuck up that much talent. It's like Mora is trying to suck.MrsPetersen said:Ok here is the whole Pac recruiting breakdown by stars. This is players that are actively on the roster. If they left, I filtered them out.
Cc: @CokeGreaterThanPepsi , @89ute
Also, we are right in the mix with Oregon and Stanford on a clear second tier. The trick will be getting in between tiers where we pull away from Tree and Oregon, and get within striking distance of USC/UCLA (not going to catch them ever).
Since then? They've been to some Rose Bowls. -
It follows with a Twitter argument I've had today with some idiot from Colorado getting pissed off @Dennis_DeYoung for questioning if Colorado can sustain their current success (in true Dennis fashion he said because their fans suck - he's not wrong) ... but they have this belief that if they could win 10 games this year with classes in the 60s they are going to be GREAT now that they have classes in the 30's ... granted their 2017 class ranked 8th in average star rating in the P12 ... not a recipe for success IMOSwaye said:
When I see this it makes me realize we still have a lot of room for improvement. It also really pounds home the point that UCLA sucks enormous donkey nuts. They are just a cunt hair behind USC. It's sort of unreal how you can fuck up that much talent. It's like Mora is trying to suck.MrsPetersen said:Ok here is the whole Pac recruiting breakdown by stars. This is players that are actively on the roster. If they left, I filtered them out.
Cc: @CokeGreaterThanPepsi , @89ute
Also, we are right in the mix with Oregon and Stanford on a clear second tier. The trick will be getting in between tiers where we pull away from Tree and Oregon, and get within striking distance of USC/UCLA (not going to catch them ever).
UCLA is the giant fraud ... it's been documented so many times in so many different ways. It's literally at the point where I think you can honestly conclude and apply the generalization to any UCLA recruit/player that they are charmin soft until proven otherwise.
Stanford has branded themselves very well and their appeal is national ... it's going to allow them to at least sustain where they are at for as long as Shaw is there. I think that there's reason with Shaw to question whether or not he can get Stanford back to being in the elite level of discussion ... but they are UW's primary competition in the North right now.
Oregon will likely stay where they are as long as Nike backs the program ... but they have definitely proven under Helfrich that their house of cards falls apart when they don't have the right coach in place ... SC is the only school in the conference that can still put out reasonably decent seasons when they have a shithead coaching them ... and fortunately for the rest of the conference SC has a propensity to make bad coaching hires. My guess is that Taggert proves that he's not the right coach either and Oregon will start earning the reputation of doing less with more.
If UCLA is the biggest fraud in the conference, ASU isn't that far behind. While their talent level is always going to be behind the LA schools, it is comparable to the next tier in the conference and there's no reason that they can't play at a high level when they get the right coach in place. Problem for them is they rarely get the right coach in place and because of that the kids that go there are more interested in getting STDs than playing football.
The wild cards in the conference to me are Utah and Colorado ... both have the potential to field programs similar to what UW is doing IF they can keep their in-state kids home and find their niche in California. Problem for both schools is that they really don't keep their kids home at high enough rates and they don't have the foothold for various reasons to get into California and Texas at levels that are getting the 1st or 2nd tier kids ... they are often getting the leftovers that the elite schools pick up. While you can still have a good program and win a division or whatnot from time to time, it becomes hard to beat the elite programs in the conference ... particularly when those programs have the right pieces in place.
Arizona, Cal, Oregon St, and Washington St are dumpster fires where recruiting is hard for various reasons. -
Colorado obviously has some good fucking coaches. I vote that we? steal their OL corch.MrsPetersen said:Ok here is the whole Pac recruiting breakdown by stars. This is players that are actively on the roster. If they left, I filtered them out.
Cc: @CokeGreaterThanPepsi , @89ute -
Lubick was a GREAT recruiter at Oregon. I'm hearing He was responsible for bringing in Mariota.
-
Bleeds purpleTTJ said:Chad Cota's boy?
-
-
#wearea3starschoolEsophagealFeces said:
Colorado obviously has some good fucking coaches. I vote that we? steal their OL corch.MrsPetersen said:Ok here is the whole Pac recruiting breakdown by stars. This is players that are actively on the roster. If they left, I filtered them out.
Cc: @CokeGreaterThanPepsi , @89ute
