On that Clemson path

[dtd]

And now we have Oregon to contend with

Now?

Did I stutter?

Brooks was three years away from the 17 year plan to lose the Rose Bowl

We did not have to contend with Oregon in recruiting

Or with being limited to 85 scholarships.

There's the quook

Not really. Clearly 85 leveled the playing field that UW was somewhat dominating. But it's been 25 fucking years, Race. Which program has a better record in the last THIRTY years? It's Oregon. And yeah, fuck '84 BYU. Was Kelee Ringo's mom even born yet? I get that you're you, but JFC, the context of everything CFB doesn't need to go back to Sonny Sixkiller to be valid.

 

[Canadawg]

Compare the talent in the south to the west, that's why we will never be Clemson.

There is no reason we can’t have top 10 classes, but there are so many more players to pull in the South than the West Coast. It’s not an excuse, it’s a reality.

For UW to have a top 10 class they need to have the best instate class ever and they need to land every single one of them along with hitting most of there other targets. In the south, you can miss a lot more since theres so much talent. Plus USC needs to be terrible because if USC is on then you can forget about it.

 

[sonics1993]

Compare the talent in the south to the west, that's why we will never be Clemson.

There is no reason we can’t have top 10 classes, but there are so many more players to pull in the South than the West Coast. It’s not an excuse, it’s a reality.

For UW to have a top 10 class they need to have the best instate class ever and they need to land every single one of them along with hitting most of there other targets. In the south, you can miss a lot more since theres so much talent. Plus USC needs to be terrible because if USC is on then you can forget about it.

View attachment 26006

Great, a day before the early signing day that had a top ten class. By February this class will be in the mid to late teens.

 

[Tequilla]

This thread is fucking stupid ... and the usual cast of idiots are nowhere to be found

GTFO with this settling excise making BS

This is a strong class in a number of ways ...

UW will never out recruit the true blue bloods ... shitty metric to measure against

The key is can we get enough talent and then put the pieces together in a way that the sum is maximized

Sick and tired of loser mindsets

 

[Beno4Life]

This thread is fucking stupid ... and the usual cast of idiots are nowhere to be found

GTFO with this settling excise making BS

This is a strong class in a number of ways ...

UW will never out recruit the true blue bloods ... shitty metric to measure against
[/b]
The key is can we get enough talent and then put the pieces together in a way that the sum is maximized

Sick and tired of loser mindsets[/b]

You literally just wrote this this.

 

[Tequilla]

I take recruiting ranking with a grain of salt ... there’s a bare minimum that you need to be at the table

After that, it’s all about what you do when you get them on campus

We are entering the territory you need ... you don’t play 85 players per game

We have never landed a class at the top tier nationally ... expecting us to do so as a sign of success is bound for disappointment. Aspirational goal ... absolutely.

The discussion in this thread is Top 10 ... it’s completely arbitrary. But when you separate and normalize the gaps in this range with the next handful of teams on either side what you find is comparable results. In that light ... there’s enough there to compete at the highest levels,

 

[Canadawg]

Compare the talent in the south to the west, that's why we will never be Clemson.

There is no reason we can’t have top 10 classes, but there are so many more players to pull in the South than the West Coast. It’s not an excuse, it’s a reality.

For UW to have a top 10 class they need to have the best instate class ever and they need to land every single one of them along with hitting most of there other targets. In the south, you can miss a lot more since theres so much talent. Plus USC needs to be terrible because if USC is on then you can forget about it.

View attachment 26006

Great, a day before the early signing day that had a top ten class. By February this class will be in the mid to late teens.

You may be right but saying they need a perfect class to get top 10 is a stretch. If they landed Ringo it would probably be there. Not far off

 

[sonics1993]

Compare the talent in the south to the west, that's why we will never be Clemson.

There is no reason we can’t have top 10 classes, but there are so many more players to pull in the South than the West Coast. It’s not an excuse, it’s a reality.

For UW to have a top 10 class they need to have the best instate class ever and they need to land every single one of them along with hitting most of there other targets. In the south, you can miss a lot more since theres so much talent. Plus USC needs to be terrible because if USC is on then you can forget about it.

View attachment 26006

Great, a day before the early signing day that had a top ten class. By February this class will be in the mid to late teens.

You may be right but saying they need a perfect class to get top 10 is a stretch. If they landed Ringo it would probably be there. Not far off

That's true but you have to remember that USC is dead right now in terms of recruiting. That's only going to last one more year and once they get rid of Clay, they will wake up and start getting the majority of the talent out west. That's when recruiting will get real tough.

 

[Tequilla]

Compare the talent in the south to the west, that's why we will never be Clemson.

There is no reason we can’t have top 10 classes, but there are so many more players to pull in the South than the West Coast. It’s not an excuse, it’s a reality.

For UW to have a top 10 class they need to have the best instate class ever and they need to land every single one of them along with hitting most of there other targets. In the south, you can miss a lot more since theres so much talent. Plus USC needs to be terrible because if USC is on then you can forget about it.

View attachment 26006

Great, a day before the early signing day that had a top ten class. By February this class will be in the mid to late teens.

You may be right but saying they need a perfect class to get top 10 is a stretch. If they landed Ringo it would probably be there. Not far off

And on top of that, what’s the right metric to measure against? Points? Avg rating? Avg rating excluding kickers?

It’s just not something to get worked up about

 

[dtd]

This thread is fucking stupid ... and the usual cast of idiots are nowhere to be found

Um...irony alert?

 

[Beno4Life]

I take recruiting ranking with a grain of salt ... there’s a bare minimum that you need to be at the table

After that, it’s all about what you do when you get them on campus

We are entering the territory you need ... you don’t play 85 players per game

We have never landed a class at the top tier nationally ... expecting us to do so as a sign of success is bound for disappointment. Aspirational goal ... absolutely.

The discussion in this thread is Top 10 ... it’s completely arbitrary. But when you separate and normalize the gaps in this range with the next handful of teams on either side what you find is comparable results. In that light ... there’s enough there to compete at the highest levels,

I'm sorry, but huh? I have no idea what in the hell you're trying to communicate through words, which reminds me of Fatters' writing style. Please clarify.

 

[dtd]

Compare the talent in the south to the west, that's why we will never be Clemson.

There is no reason we can’t have top 10 classes, but there are so many more players to pull in the South than the West Coast. It’s not an excuse, it’s a reality.

For UW to have a top 10 class they need to have the best instate class ever and they need to land every single one of them along with hitting most of there other targets. In the south, you can miss a lot more since theres so much talent. Plus USC needs to be terrible because if USC is on then you can forget about it.

View attachment 26006

Great, a day before the early signing day that had a top ten class. By February this class will be in the mid to late teens.

You may be right but saying they need a perfect class to get top 10 is a stretch. If they landed Ringo it would probably be there. Not far off

UW won't even have a hat on the table and that's your logic?

 

[Tequilla]

I take recruiting ranking with a grain of salt ... there’s a bare minimum that you need to be at the table

After that, it’s all about what you do when you get them on campus

We are entering the territory you need ... you don’t play 85 players per game

We have never landed a class at the top tier nationally ... expecting us to do so as a sign of success is bound for disappointment. Aspirational goal ... absolutely.

The discussion in this thread is Top 10 ... it’s completely arbitrary. But when you separate and normalize the gaps in this range with the next handful of teams on either side what you find is comparable results. In that light ... there’s enough there to compete at the highest levels,

I'm sorry, but huh? I have no idea what in the hell you're trying to communicate through words, which reminds me of Fatters' writing style. Please clarify.

Recruiting ranking are what exactly? What’s the right metric? Do guys like Biggins/Huffman have better insight than others? Are they fortune tellers of the future?

We don’t know how players will develop and how they react when they realize that they aren’t in high school anymore

Here’s what I care about:

You have to have a certain # of 4 stars or better ... originally the idea was 40+ but I do think it’s probably close to 50+ ... btw we are in that range

How do they get maximized on campus ... are they able to grow and improve? We often forget these kids are 17-18 years and they are far from

So get in the range of having enough players .. then if/when a lower rated guys beats seemingly more talented guys out, it’s far more likely that they actually beat them out.

 

[Canadawg]

Teqs right. People act like recruiting rankings are video game stats. Lots of highly skilled players will hit more than a few elite skilled players.

 

[backthepack]

Teqs right. People act like recruiting rankings are video game stats. Lots of highly skilled players will hit more than a few elite skilled players.

That’s because there is more of them.

Higher % of 5 stars pan out than 4 stars etc etc.

 

[Beno4Life]

I take recruiting ranking with a grain of salt ... there’s a bare minimum that you need to be at the table

After that, it’s all about what you do when you get them on campus

We are entering the territory you need ... you don’t play 85 players per game

We have never landed a class at the top tier nationally ... expecting us to do so as a sign of success is bound for disappointment. Aspirational goal ... absolutely.

The discussion in this thread is Top 10 ... it’s completely arbitrary. But when you separate and normalize the gaps in this range with the next handful of teams on either side what you find is comparable results. In that light ... there’s enough there to compete at the highest levels,

I'm sorry, but huh? I have no idea what in the hell you're trying to communicate through words, which reminds me of Fatters' writing style. Please clarify.

Recruiting ranking are what exactly? What’s the right metric? Do guys like Biggins/Huffman have better insight than others? Are they fortune tellers of the future?

We don’t know how players will develop and how they react when they realize that they aren’t in high school anymore

Here’s what I care about:

You have to have a certain # of 4 stars or better ... originally the idea was 40+ but I do think it’s probably close to 50+ ... btw we are in that range

How do they get maximized on campus ... are they able to grow and improve? We often forget these kids are 17-18 years and they are far from

So get in the range of having enough players .. then if/when a lower rated guys beats seemingly more talented guys out, it’s far more likely that they actually beat them out.

I care about getting highly-rated guys, ie 4/5-star blue chips, cause empirical data says they win championships. Justin Flowe and Noah Sewell and Kelee Ringo and Bijan Robinson and Gee Scott win league titles and nattys.

I care about matching the style of player with the style of the program, ie size vs speed, etc. Jimmy/Kwat run a nickel D, so I want elite DBs, two-gapping DL, and fast LBs, not the McDonalds or Beef Wellingtons of the world.

I care about fit, so that dudes don't think they're bigger than the team.

Honestly, after this last abomination of a season, I want fire and swag to return to the team. I want #DeathRowDawgs and more dudes like Dick Newton trucking people and celebrating, and guys backing up their talk.

 

[Canadawg]

Teqs right. People act like recruiting rankings are video game stats. Lots of highly skilled players will hit more than a few elite skilled players.

That’s because there is more of them.

Higher % of 5 stars pan out than 4 stars etc etc.

True

 

[FireCohen]

Wow bunch a doogs out here.

 

[RaceBannon]

And now we have Oregon to contend with

Now?

Did I stutter?

Brooks was three years away from the 17 year plan to lose the Rose Bowl

We did not have to contend with Oregon in recruiting

Or with being limited to 85 scholarships.

There's the quook

Not really. Clearly 85 leveled the playing field that UW was somewhat dominating. But it's been 25 fucking years, Race. Which program has a better record in the last THIRTY years? It's Oregon. And yeah, fuck '84 BYU. Was Kelee Ringo's mom even born yet? I get that you're you, but JFC, the context of everything CFB doesn't need to go back to Sonny Sixkiller to be valid.

And there's the quook again

 

[YellowSnow]

I take recruiting ranking with a grain of salt ... there’s a bare minimum that you need to be at the table

After that, it’s all about what you do when you get them on campus

We are entering the territory you need ... you don’t play 85 players per game

We have never landed a class at the top tier nationally ... expecting us to do so as a sign of success is bound for disappointment. Aspirational goal ... absolutely.

The discussion in this thread is Top 10 ... it’s completely arbitrary. But when you separate and normalize the gaps in this range with the next handful of teams on either side what you find is comparable results. In that light ... there’s enough there to compete at the highest levels,

The evidence accumulated over the past 20 years suggests you can win a Natty or get damn close with top 11- 20 type talent, BUT only if you add on the generational talent, messiah QB- i.e., Watson, Cam or Marcus. Every other NT winner going back to Miamuh in 2001 was Top 10 level rather easily. Don't recall where Oklahomo in 2000 was.