Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
So where does this class rank all-time at UW?
Gladstone
Member Posts: 16,425
So where does this class rank all-time at UW? 45 votes
Top 1-2
37%
17 votes
Top 3-5
26%
12 votes
Top 5-9
0%
Worthless because Martin didn't commit. FML.
35%
16 votes
Comments
-
Top 3-5LIPO
-
Worthless because Martin didn't commit. FML.Keeping with the bored tradition
-
Worthless because Martin didn't commit. FML.Sark would have gotten Martin, everyone says so
-
Top 1-2It 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. -
Sark would've gotten Olaijah Griffin, Aashari Crowell, Ben Wilson and a lot of non-rated and overrated 3 stars.LoneStarDawg said:Sark would have gotten Martin, everyone says so
-
Top 3-5Fuck me I voted before reading all the options. Should be worthless
-
Top 3-5I'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. -
Top 1-2
#3?dnc said: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.
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. -
Top 3-5
91 for sure.AIRWOLF said:
#3?dnc said: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.
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.
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! -
Worthless because Martin didn't commit. FML.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.
