So where does this class rank all-time at UW?

Gladstone

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

MisterEm

LIPO

RaceBannon

Keeping with the bored tradition

LoneStarDawg

Sark would have gotten Martin, everyone says so

chuck

It good.

LB/OLB recruiting is still lagging a bit even with Kaho. Ty found Donald Butler and Mason Foster. Sark found Kikaha, Littleton, Feeney, Bierria, and Victor. All of that talent doesn't include a single 4* recruit. Petersen's staff has *us stocked with white 3* and a couple of promising young athletes who were, however, unable to crack the depth. You don't have to win a ton of big recruiting battles to find big athletes who can play linebacker or rush the passer. Fight those battles and get your occasiomal Kaho type miracle, but quit favoring polished tryhards over big, fast athletes to fill out numbers.

That rant aside there aren't any other holes. There are big time guys at every position. It's amazing.

BlastDoor

Sark would have gotten Martin, everyone says so

Sark would've gotten Olaijah Griffin, Aashari Crowell, Ben Wilson and a lot of non-rated and overrated 3 stars.

MrsPetersen

Fuck me I voted before reading all the options. Should be worthless

dnc

I'd probably put it at #3 but with this staff's ability to develop talent it has a real shot at the top.

It really depends on a) will one of the QB's become stars b) what do they do with BUCK and does it work (Kaho? ZTP? Bueller?).

It's a damn good class.

AIRWOLF

I'd probably put it at #3 but with this staff's ability to develop talent it has a real shot at the top.

It really depends on a) will one of the QB's become stars b) what do they do with BUCK and does it work (Kaho? ZTP? Bueller?).

It's a damn good class.

#3?

I would be interested to hear which ones you think looked better at the time they were signed.

Maybe 1991 and 1988? Very difficult to compare historically going that far back.

dnc

I'd probably put it at #3 but with this staff's ability to develop talent it has a real shot at the top.

It really depends on a) will one of the QB's become stars b) what do they do with BUCK and does it work (Kaho? ZTP? Bueller?).

It's a damn good class.
#3?

I would be interested to hear which ones you think looked better at the time they were signed.

Maybe 1991 and 1988? Very difficult to compare historically going that far back.

91 for sure.

92 would be close.

88 I'm too young to have an opinion about it at the time.

2001 looked amazing at the time.

I'd probably go 91, 01, 18, 92 for what I can recall. I can't imagine 88 was a legit top 10 class on paper because of where the program was at at that point. Obviously they proved to be elite. Thanks Dr Feeldgood!

Dennis_DeYoung

No, 1988 was rated VERY similarly to this class. People liked it a lot at the time. It was considered a real breakthrough.

It was ranking around 10-12.

FremontTroll

I am not an old so I defer to Race.

But we landed our top target(s) at every position other than RB and DL so I would have a hard time imagining any class being better all-around.

Doogles

I throw in Eason as a transfer bonus to this class and it takes it to the next level.

If Stanford gets credit for Tanner Mkees two year Mormon mission, than I say we get credit for Skinnys 1 year of forced penance.

CFetters_Nacho_Lover

I'd probably put it at #3 but with this staff's ability to develop talent it has a real shot at the top.

It really depends on a) will one of the QB's become stars b) what do they do with BUCK and does it work (Kaho? ZTP? Bueller?).

It's a damn good class.

#3? We all know Gil Dobie's 1913 class is a clear #2 and that Ty's 2008 class was the best ever according to Mitzi. The '08 class was chincredibly good.

If you're ranking this class as #3, that mean you're putting it ahead of Dobie's '11 class and DJ's '88 and '90 classes. That's just crazy.

AIRWOLF

I'd probably put it at #3 but with this staff's ability to develop talent it has a real shot at the top.

It really depends on a) will one of the QB's become stars b) what do they do with BUCK and does it work (Kaho? ZTP? Bueller?).

It's a damn good class.
#3?

I would be interested to hear which ones you think looked better at the time they were signed.

Maybe 1991 and 1988? Very difficult to compare historically going that far back.
91 for sure.

92 would be close.

88 I'm too young to have an opinion about it at the time.

2001 looked amazing at the time.

I'd probably go 91, 01, 18, 92 for what I can recall. I can't imagine 88 was a legit top 10 class on paper because of where the program was at at that point. Obviously they proved to be elite. Thanks Dr Feeldgood!

Yeah, 1991 was awesome. You are right that 1988 was full of great players but was probably not highly ranked at the time.

Back then you had Allen Wallace, Tom Lemming, and Street & Smith for class rankings, as well as the Long Beach Press Telegram's Best in the West. Sadly there aren't any archives that I could find on any of those with historical rankings.

I just re-read that last paragraph and I want to kill myself for being such a loser.

Mad_Son

TheHB

Did I miss the hanging?

UW_Doog_Bot

Our depth at one of the most important D positions that everyone has harped on went from no depth to loaded(albeit untested) in a class. Same goes for qb if you count Easy. As much as I would have loved Martin thats basically because all the other questions have been answered.

purpledoogfan

Pre Scout/247/Rivals I know Neuheisel landed some highly rated classes while wooing recruits with a float plane and obviously James had things rolling late 80's and early 90's. But in my lifetime this is probably the best class top to bottom that I can remember.

I'll go with "top 3-5" but "worthless because Martin didn't commit. FML." was very appealing due to the fact our best edge rusher is still a six foot white try hard walk-on.