Recruiting Winners & Losers

[WizardHawk]

So if you guys had Tommy Armstrong you would have made the playoffs? Very average quarterback. Could you have done it?

Browning had a mixed bag season. He was the story in a few games so you can't discredit his impact, but he was quite absent in several including all of them down the stretch. Turns out he had a shoulder thing that he just had surgery on.

Ross and Pettis at WR would have made a lot of QB's look good and they did have a running game.

Their issues down the stretch were more on defense and showed the lack of depth at a couple of key positions where those injuries came from. Losing Mathis and Victor were big problems on an otherwise stout and deep defense.

The differences at the top are about that depth. Most high level teams can line up 11 on either side that can win against almost everyone, but the elite teams have kids behind the kids that are behind the starters that can also leave you confident. No doubt UW is a ways off from that level.

I don't think with his OKG thing that Petersen will ever land a top 10 class unless several 5*'s just land in his lap that happened to love UW anyway. But I'll reserve full judgement until after his roster is nothing but his kids top to bottom.

 

[WizardHawk]

Let me put it another way, would you rather have a coach that can land you 5* kids and doesn't seem to develop them, or a coach that seems to turn 3's and 4's into outstanding players? Clearly you want one that can do both, but given only those two options I'll take the guy that does wonders with average kids.

 

[DHoey]

Browning had a mixed bag season. He was the story in a few games so you can't discredit his impact, but he was quite absent in several including all of them down the stretch. Turns out he had a shoulder thing that he just had surgery on.

Ross and Pettis at WR would have made a lot of QB's look good and they did have a running game.

Their issues down the stretch were more on defense and showed the lack of depth at a couple of key positions where those injuries came from. Losing Mathis and Victor were big problems on an otherwise stout and deep defense.

The differences at the top are about that depth. Most high level teams can line up 11 on either side that can win against almost everyone, but the elite teams have kids behind the kids that are behind the starters that can also leave you confident. No doubt UW is a ways off from that level.

I don't think with his OKG thing that Petersen will ever land a top 10 class unless several 5*'s just land in his lap that happened to love UW anyway. But I'll reserve full judgement until after his roster is nothing but his kids top to bottom.

In-state talent pool looks pretty dry next year. Next year's class should tell a lot on how/if Petersen can recruit at a high level

 

[DHoey]

Let me put it another way, would you rather have a coach that can land you 5* kids and doesn't seem to develop them, or a coach that seems to turn 3's and 4's into outstanding players? Clearly you want one that can do both, but given only those two options I'll take the guy that does wonders with average kids.

So you can pick between Wisconsin or aTm?

 

[WizardHawk]

In-state talent pool looks pretty dry next year. Next year's class should tell a lot on how/if Petersen can recruit at a high level

Holding onto Jacob Sirmon will also be a major story. His uncle is now at Louisville so both he and his cousin who also is a verbal to us might have some strong forces pulling them in that direction.

He has to keep that one to show he can still hold onto very sought after talent. He's going to be a 5* and on most higher teams radar.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Found a cool chart from Rivals (obviously then it's using Rivals rankings):

Michigan cleaned up in the 101-300 range but fell short on the top 100 guys compared to a lot of the other top 10 schools.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

See the averages listed next to each team name? Reorder them and that's the list you get.

Stanford only took 14, but took freakishly good 14. Their average rank per player is higher than USC's, they just have less kids.

Click on the ave button here and arrange them by average:
Rivals.com

This gives you a more fair representation of where their overall quality of player is comparatively, even if the quantity doesn't match up.

Quality wise Stanford won the Pac hands down.

Yeah that just seems like skewing numbers. Im also not thinking its going to be the same if you do the math on other sites.I thought you said you got the AVG off of 247 it makes more sense it came from Rivals. Rivals has USC ranked the lowest out of the major recruiting boards. I also noticed rivals seems to be the only site that does not list USC as having any 5 star commits.Which is reflective in the math regarding their recruiting AVG.In comparison with jus a few. Just comparing SC and Stanford for example

247
USC 5 star/2 4 star 12 ranked 4
Stanford 5 star/3 4 star 6 ranked 14

Rivals
USC 5 star/0 4 star 17 ranked 6
Stanford 5 star/3 4 star/7 ranked 19

Scout
USC 5 star/4 4 star/13 ranked 5
Stanford 5 star/3 4 star/6 ranked 24

Thats just a few and there are a lot of variables..As you can see the numbers shift.And with that the AVG. I'll stick with the actual numbers over avg

 

[Codaxx]

Fair enough. I'll be honest, I expected Herman, with his reputation on the recruiting trail, to at least wrap up some of the top uncommitted guys in Texas but he ended up losing on each one. Even the ones that were early enrollees, they didn't start school until January. He was hired in late November. Levi Jones is a guy that I thought should have been made a priority, but it doesn't look like Herman even visited him. Chaisson was an enormous whiff. I was genuinely worried when Herman went there that he was going to start moving on on these Texas recruits right away, like when Urban took the Buckeyes job in November of 2011. He took us from somewhere in the high 20s/low 30s to 5th. I know Herman isn't Urban, but damn.

Sorry, not trying to pile on or be a dick. I was just very surprised by how things ended up. At least there's nowhere to go but up for Herman.

Levi was never coming here. His brother was briefly a player here, before he was kicked out for punching his ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend. Reports from the 9.95 crowd reported that his father went so far as to influence his teammate, Zabie, from coming to Texas. Remember OSU had 3 of the top 5 or 6 Texas recruits enrolled by December. Herman was a bit unlucky in that respect.

 

[Across The Field]

Levi was never coming here. His brother was briefly a player here, before he was kicked out for punching his ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend. Reports from the 9.95 crowd reported that his father went so far as to influence his teammate, Zabie, from coming to Texas. Remember OSU had 3 of the top 5 or 6 Texas recruits enrolled by December. Herman was a bit unlucky in that respect.

Those were just the guys from Texas I was mentioning. It's not like UT is bound to the state borders. Outside of Pouncey, he didn't seem to go after anyone that didn't live within a state away from Texas. He needs to start dipping into the Florida and California markets more if Texas is dried up. Then again, maybe he'll pull up the drawbridge and keep the top kids from leaving moving forward.

 

[blazer prophet]

No clue. But what weakness was Browning masking? Because, at no fault to him, his play is why we floundered against Bama.

I think Browning is an excellent QB. But like many good college QB's, he reacts poorly under pressure. USC QB's are known for that.

 

[Deep Creek]

My biggest belief is success begets success.

On an overall basis, I agree 100%. There are some outliers that have flash in the pan success but don't follow up on it. But, that generally isn't true IMHO.

Concerning Washington, Peterson has always looked for certain types of players going back to his Boise days. I even saw a special on such during his hey day years there. He'll go after "starred" players hard if they meet his criteria but I don't see him chasing equally "starred" players that don't. If he doesn't get the "starred" players that meet his criteria, he seems like the type that will go after lesser "starred" players that do meet his criteria. And that won't show up very well in recruiting rankings some years. JMO

 

[DHoey]

I think Browning is an excellent QB. But like many good college QB's, he reacts poorly under pressure. USC QB's are known for that.

I think so too, but the last 1/3rd of the season, something wasn't right with him. I know he has surgery so maybe that was it.

 

[blazer prophet]

I think so too, but the last 1/3rd of the season, something wasn't right with him. I know he has surgery so maybe that was it.

You could be right. But, damn, he gets rid of the ball fast and throws a nice pass. He'll be a good pro.

 

[DHoey]

You could be right. But, damn, he gets rid of the ball fast and throws a nice pass. He'll be a good pro.

I don't know if he will. He's not that mobile, and he doesn't have the size. I think he will be a really good college player and maybe a 3-4 NFL career. I see him similar to Cody Pickett

 

[WizardHawk]

Yeah that just seems like skewing numbers. Im also not thinking its going to be the same if you do the math on other sites.I thought you said you got the AVG off of 247 it makes more sense it came from Rivals. Rivals has USC ranked the lowest out of the major recruiting boards. I also noticed rivals seems to be the only site that does not list USC as having any 5 star commits.Which is reflective in the math regarding their recruiting AVG.In comparison with jus a few. Just comparing SC and Stanford for example

247
USC 5 star/2 4 star 12 ranked 4
Stanford 5 star/3 4 star 6 ranked 14

Rivals
USC 5 star/0 4 star 17 ranked 6
Stanford 5 star/3 4 star/7 ranked 19

Scout
USC 5 star/4 4 star/13 ranked 5
Stanford 5 star/3 4 star/6 ranked 24

Thats just a few and there are a lot of variables..As you can see the numbers shift.And with that the AVG. I'll stick with the actual numbers over avg

Negative. I said the list I put up was from 247, not Rivals, but I also added that for you because that one has the ability to easily reorder the Pac by average and 247 does not.

If you take the list in my first post on this and look at the 247 Pac12 rankings you will see their averages line up to those. It's not hard to do that by hand. For example, Stanfords average is 92.4 and USC's is 91.63, then UW's is the next highest at 88.36 and so on.


Of course you don't like that method of looking at the data as it puts Stanford ahead of you. I haven't ever liked rating classes based of total points when so many schools take far less in one given year. Both measures are valid. Obviously having more overall kids is a better chance at finding serviceable players even if they are 3 star kids coming in. Higher ranked kids is a better chance any individual kid will make it as a starter. Neither is devoid of value, but I prefer (and always have) looking at the average rank. It's more even IMO.

 

[The Oldtimer]

In-state talent pool looks pretty dry next year. Next year's class should tell a lot on how/if Petersen can recruit at a high level

The problem with the Huskies in the past and present, have been keeping those in-state talent in state.

 

[WizardHawk]

I think so too, but the last 1/3rd of the season, something wasn't right with him. I know he has surgery so maybe that was it.

He had shoulder surgery the other day and all went well. Petersen said he should be fine for spring ball, but hinted they are going to slow him down. Seems he loves to throw and they are always on him to not do too much and risk burning his arm out and this is going to make them slow him down even more.

The shoulder injury was relatively minor, but appeared to have a fair amount of impact on his deep throws as that was what seemed most off in those last 4 games or so.

And yes, he needs a lot more work playing from a broken pocket and/or broken play. He wasn't under duress much in high school and I blame all these 7 on 7 camps/drills for not giving them a complete view of the passing game. Too much emphasis on arm and not enough on pressure drills. He spent last off season working on the deep ball, I'd rather see him spend a lot of time on pocket scrambles and whatnot this off season.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Negative. I said the list I put up was from 247, not Rivals, but I also added that for you because that one has the ability to easily reorder the Pac by average and 247 does not.

If you take the list in my first post on this and look at the 247 Pac12 rankings you will see their averages line up to those. It's not hard to do that by hand. For example, Stanfords average is 92.4 and USC's is 91.63, then UW's is the next highest at 88.36 and so on.


Of course you don't like that method of looking at the data as it puts Stanford ahead of you. I haven't ever liked rating classes based of total points when so many schools take far less in one given year. Both measures are valid. Obviously having more overall kids is a better chance at finding serviceable players even if they are 3 star kids coming in. Higher ranked kids is a better chance any individual kid will make it as a starter. Neither is devoid of value, but I prefer (and always have) looking at the average rank. It's more even IMO.

Then feel free to send me the link from 247.The link you sent me was from rivals. The only way you are getting a legitimate AVG.Would be to run the formula from all 4 major sites. Then AVG them together.Much like composite rankings. I cant say I care about AVG too many variables.Maybe you just don't like the actual rankings. Because USC is 1st and Oregon is above Udubs

 

[Deep Creek]

Those were just the guys from Texas I was mentioning. It's not like UT is bound to the state borders. Outside of Pouncey, he didn't seem to go after anyone that didn't live within a state away from Texas. He needs to start dipping into the Florida and California markets more if Texas is dried up. Then again, maybe he'll pull up the drawbridge and keep the top kids from leaving moving forward.

I've said it before, a whole bunch of our "lauded" kids are nearly at the top of their potential when they leave high school. Some will continue to develop but many, many are "as good as their ability will allow." If they've been at traditionally sound programs they've had the absolute best training, nutrition, strength/conditioning, etc that there is for that level. Now the kids at "poorer" programs, they will have a lot of upside and may well be diamonds in the rough!

 

[WizardHawk]

Then feel free to send me the link from 247.The link you sent me was from rivals. The only way you are getting a legitimate AVG.Would be to run the formula from all 4 major sites. Then AVG them together.Much like composite rankings. I cant say I care about AVG too many variables.Maybe you just don't like the actual rankings. Because USC is 1st and Oregon is above Udubs

I haven't ever liked points totals even when James was here and UW was higher in that category.

I'm not sure how many times I have to tell you how to get the list I came up with. It's kind of easy and takes maybe 2 minutes of time. 247 doesn't have a nice little button to do it for you like Rivals did. You have to actually use your brain for a second.
2017 Pac-12 Football Team Rankings
Look at the AVE for each and order them from highest to lowest and you get the list I posted.

Who gives a shit about composite this or that? It wouldn't substantially change. The fact you do get variation in all of the major sites is proof ranking isn't an exact science. If you want to waste your time running down that from every site go for it. It was someone else that brought up 247 as one they liked more than scouts or rivals and most hate ESPN so that's the one I listed.

Sorry if I think Stanford had far and away the best class if it bothers you that much, but that's how I see it.