Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
5th Annual Jesse Callier Commemorative Post-Collegiate Career Impact Ranking Survey RESULTS (2019)
Comments
-
Do you have historical votes by people? Would be interesting to see their 5-year averages and look at trends in their voting year-over-year.
-
A key thing for me is peak contributions. For example I gave bbk 4 because of what he was this year. I would have potentially given him 2 pre-season and almost gave him 3 because he started the year a bit slower but he definitely had a big year for us this year and it's not his fault we had little depth and he had to play before he was ready (another factor I considered for 3 was did he only become as good as he did because he got the jillion game time reps that he did but erred on giving him cred)
-
Browning’s a (low) 4 due to his longevity and 2016
In the end, 2 conference titles and 3 NY6 Bowls are reasonably solid ... although fair to note he largely sucked in each game -
I probably should have given Browning a 3. 2016 he was a 4/5 level player. This year he was so bad that I felt like I had to give him a 2
-
Browning is also a guy whose rating was as much due to not separating personal hate vs on field performance
-
Personal bias or likeability factor is dumb considering it's supposed to be about impact to UW football program, nothing more.Woof said:
He was a low 3, but I agree.Doogles said:
People forget why this thing started in the first place.kh83 said:So I think we all sort of vary a little on what 2-3-4 rankings are, but generally, id bet we all think a 5 is a complete baller, best in the nation worthy and a 1 contributed nothing. For me, Bowman hit the field and played. Thats a minimum 2 ranking.
It's because Jessie Callier WAS a 3 star and I'll die on that sword!
My rating system is something like:
1 - never played, or only played in garbage time and generally sucked - Michael Neal
2 - played a bit, maybe some spot starts, but never held down a full season and/or generally was below average when on the field - Shane Bowman
3 - started about a year and likely contributed another year or two, but generally pretty average - Tevis Bartlett
4 - multi-year starter, above average for at least a year, likely with some postseason honors like Pac-12 1st or 2nd team - BBK
5 - multi-year starter that was above average for multiple years. Made lots of splash plays and won a significant award like the Morris Trophy or was an All-American - MMFG
From there, I will bump up or down a point, given my personal like/dislike of said player. My system likely overrates longevity, but IMHO a guy like Gaskin that stays 4 years and sets a ton of records has a more impactful career than a guy like Byron Murphy that kills it for 18 games and then goes to the NFL. This year was tough because there were so many likeable players in that 3+ range (Sample, String, Tevis, Miller, McIntosh, etc.)
By your definition BBK is a slam dunk 5 (productive multi-year starter, all-american, P12 DPOY, made splash plays) but because Dennis hates white people he's a 4? -
I hate him because of his on-field performance.Tequilla said:Browning is also a guy whose rating was as much due to not separating personal hate vs on field performance
-
I'm open to discussion as to why Sugar Shane Bozeman isn't a 1
I gave him a 3 because after 2016 I would have put him at a 5 then docked him a point every year afterTequilla said:Browning is also a guy whose rating was as much due to not separating personal hate vs on field performance
-
After receiving the most retarded voter status last year I sat this year out. #additionbysubtraction
-
It’s almost like people here are projecting the qualities of being OKG as being impacted by racial stereotypes, and ignoring how its actually being applied by their background/surroundings....
