Things you should keep in mind about recruiting

RaceBannon

RaceBannon

Moderator
Staff member
Swaye's Wigwam
Founder's Club
Nobody loves our DAWGS more than I do. Or did. I would visit UCLA or USC while going to games down here as a DAWG fan back in the day.

I remember thinking - how does UW even beat these guys for anyone - hell I'd rather go here and I love the DAWGS.

It takes a lot to pry that kid out of So Cal. Winning first, second, and third. And then you have to get lucky.

USC will always get first choice. We will always think we are a better choice than UCLA and end up holding our dicks on signing day while UCLA gets second call.

But we do know that we can recruit enough to beat those bastards and win some league and national titles with a break here or there.

Gotta go, Clay Helton is at the door
 
Nobody loves our DAWGS more than I do. Or did. I would visit UCLA or USC while going to games down here as a DAWG fan back in the day.

I remember thinking - how does UW even beat these guys for anyone - hell I'd rather go here and I love the DAWGS.

It takes a lot to pry that kid out of So Cal. Winning first, second, and third. And then you have to get lucky.

USC will always get first choice. We will always think we are a better choice than UCLA and end up holding our dicks on signing day while UCLA gets second call.

But we do know that we can recruit enough to beat those bastards and win some league and national titles with a break here or there.

Gotta go, Clay Helton is at the door
Click to expand...

In 2015 after we beat SC down there, some random doogs were making comments,"Yeah and look at that. The UW coaches will be wearing purple and recruiting around LA while they're down here, fresh off the win."

Yeah, no one gave a fuck.

Some luck in LA is great, but UW got Husky Legend and true daWg Marcus Peters from NorCal. That's where we need to capitalize for our out-of-state talent.
 
Nobody loves our DAWGS more than I do. Or did. I would visit UCLA or USC while going to games down here as a DAWG fan back in the day.

I remember thinking - how does UW even beat these guys for anyone - hell I'd rather go here and I love the DAWGS.

It takes a lot to pry that kid out of So Cal. Winning first, second, and third. And then you have to get lucky.

USC will always get first choice. We will always think we are a better choice than UCLA and end up holding our dicks on signing day while UCLA gets second call.

But we do know that we can recruit enough to beat those bastards and win some league and national titles with a break here or there.

Gotta go, Clay Helton is at the door
Click to expand...

So we shouldn't demand that coaches be fired when a recruit picks USC over UW? I'm confused
 
A few thoughts on this:

-There are really different parts of SoCal: OC, IE, SD, LA and from the Valley North.

-They are all slightly different in terms of our abilities to pull guys from there.

-UCLA does well with Valley North guys and 'ok' everywhere else.

-USC kills with all these guys, but particularly LA and OC.

-We get killed in LA and when—for a brief shining moment—we didn't, we got some great recruits.

-One thing that helps us is when USC and UCLA start recruiting more in Texas and Florida (etc) than in SoCal.

Here's how we've done in SoCal recently:
(only counting kids other people wanted; doesn't matter where they're from if we offer kids no one wants and win)

2017 (3): Taylor, McKinney and Bynum
They were all from the OC. Jimmy Lake is both position coach and area recruiter for OC, so 2 out of 3 were that way.

2016 (4): McGrew, Love, Wattenberg, Pleasant
We got 2 from the OC, 2 from the IE (Love, Pleasant). Boner is both Pleasant's position coach and area recruiter.

2015 (6): Renfro, Beavers, Neal, Miller, Pounds, Baccelia
We get 3 here from Valley North (Renfro, Beavers, Baccelia), 1 from IE (Neal), 1 from SD (Miller) and 1 from OC (Pounds). This year was weird because we only beat second tier schools for these guys, save for Renfro who our main comp was probably Michigan State. So, we were definitely recruiting against low-end comp for all these guys (Colorado and Utah mostly).

2014 (7): Hale, Lenius, Gaines, McIntosh, Gardenhire, Jones, Johnson
Another weird year where we beat out some lower-tier schools for SoCal guys. Hale and Gaines were OC guys with no LA school offers. McIntosh and Lenius were both from Chaminade Prep in the Valley (they were both guys who had one okay other offer that I'm not sure they could've taken), and then Gardenhire and Jones were both from basically LA (Long Beach and West Covina). Johnson was from IE.

So... in terms of beating LA schools for kids here's what we've done by region:

OC - We've done 'ok' getting kids out of the Trinity League.
IE - We got Love.
SD - Fuck no.
LA - lololololol
Valley North - No one.

This is one basic reason why you can cross of the list any kids from LA and generally SoCal unless Jimmy Lake is their position coach. We've only recruited DBs consistently well.

That said, we have done really well in the state of Washington and decently in NorCal. I would say improving our recruiting in NorCal, Oregon and Utah is more realistic and possible than in SoCal. Unless a kid is a DB, kids in SoCal seem pretty unrealistic for us (pending the WR hire).
 
The key is finding five-star LA kids who have to leave the area because the Crips have a hit out on them like De'Anthony Thomas. While hoping it outnumbers your own five-star kids who quickly need Canadian citizenship.
 
The key is finding five-star LA kids who have to leave the area because the Crips have a hit out on them like De'Anthony Thomas. While hoping it outnumbers your own five-star kids who quickly need Canadian citizenship.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it better.
 
The key is finding five-star LA kids who have to leave the area because the Crips have a hit out on them like De'Anthony Thomas. While hoping it outnumbers your own five-star kids who quickly need Canadian citizenship.
Click to expand...

potd
 
This thread should really be about a two step process:

1. What information can we dig up on these LA kids that will make it so gangs want to kill them?

2. How can we make it so it's obvious Seattle is the safest place for them to hide?
 
The key is finding five-star LA kids who have to leave the area because the Crips have a hit out on them like De'Anthony Thomas. While hoping it outnumbers your own five-star kids who quickly need Canadian citizenship.
Click to expand...

That explains why he ended up at Oregon
 
I can't chincredible @Dennis_DeYoung's post enough ...

More to the point I think it's important to look at the composition of the classes under Pete since 2014 to understand how we're recruiting. I think the key takeaway from Dennis is that our ability to recruit LA is pretty much an effort in futility ... we need to put the work in down there "just in case" we get lucky and are able to pull somebody out ... particularly when USC/UCLA recruit outside of LA.

In both the 2016 and 2017 classes, UW took 18 players. The expectation in the 2018 class is that we'll take around 18 as well. Pete stated during the Signing Day press conference that classes between 15-20 are the desired levels going forward. And given that we don't have significant attrition, it's realistic that more often than not we will be in this range going forward.

What follows is a look of our recruits by location during Pete's tenure:

2014 Class (23 total)

California: 16
Washington: 5
Idaho: 1
Wyoming: 1

2015 Class (25 total)

California: 13
Washington: 8
Oregon: 1
Idaho: 1
Texas: 1
Wyoming: 1

2016 Class (18 total)

California: 8
Washington: 5
Texas: 2
Arizona: 2
Oregon: 1

2017 Class (18 total)

California: 7
Washington: 6
Oregon: 2
Utah: 2
Australia: 1

So if you think about it going forward from the standpoint of "how do we get to 18 scholarships each year," you're looking at 5 to 8 recruits per year coming from the State of Washington. I think the 7-8 recruits that we have gotten out of California in the 2016 and 2017 classes is probably more representative going forward of what it is that we're looking for. As Dennis noted in going through what we've pulled out of California, the 2014 and 2015 classes we needed numbers and a lot of the guys that we got out of California we're guys that were lower tier guys that we were recruiting against the bottom half of the conference ... THESE ARE GUYS WE DON'T WANT GOING FORWARD. So thinking of the half dozen or so guys we need to get from California going forward, you're probably looking at 2/3 of the guys we're getting coming out of the Bay Area and the other half coming out of SoCal and largely Orange County (which when you think about it, Orange County on the whole probably fits best the type of kid/family where our messaging is going to resonate the best with).

Outside of California and Washington, we haven't taken any more than 2 recruits in a year from any other location. As long as Oregon is a dumpster fire, we should have an expectation of being able to pull a recruit from there. If there are any strong recruits in Idaho or Montana we should be in a good position to get them. It's important for us to have at least some kind of presence in Arizona and Texas to at least make sure that we are gauging interest and capitalizing if we can find someone that is receptive to our message. The area where we have been really poor on recently is in Hawaii ... we need to figure out how to make inroads there. There's emerging numbers of talent in Utah and that's becoming a very competitive location for recruits. And of course, there's always random locations where we'll get interest from someone that plays itself out.

But the reality is that as long as we're really going after 18 on a consistent basis, the balance of our recruiting is centered on keeping the elite in-state kids home (should happen relatively easily with our success continuing) and maintaining our foot print in the areas of California where we've been successful. We need to focus on making sure we get a strong recruiting option to replace Hamden and eventually Lake. Whenever the 10th assistant coach gets approved by the NCAA we need to make sure that we're hiring a heavy recruiter in that position to help us in continuing to build networks and relationships to be able to get that random elite player from here or there that wants to go to UW. Our biggest risk is forgetting what makes us successful from a recruiting standpoint. What we have right now is largely sustainable IMO.
 
I can't chincredible @Dennis_DeYoung's post enough ...

More to the point I think it's important to look at the composition of the classes under Pete since 2014 to understand how we're recruiting. I think the key takeaway from Dennis is that our ability to recruit LA is pretty much an effort in futility ... we need to put the work in down there "just in case" we get lucky and are able to pull somebody out ... particularly when USC/UCLA recruit outside of LA.

In both the 2016 and 2017 classes, UW took 18 players. The expectation in the 2018 class is that we'll take around 18 as well. Pete stated during the Signing Day press conference that classes between 15-20 are the desired levels going forward. And given that we don't have significant attrition, it's realistic that more often than not we will be in this range going forward.

What follows is a look of our recruits by location during Pete's tenure:

2014 Class (23 total)

California: 16
Washington: 5
Idaho: 1
Wyoming: 1

2015 Class (25 total)

California: 13
Washington: 8
Oregon: 1
Idaho: 1
Texas: 1
Wyoming: 1

2016 Class (18 total)

California: 8
Washington: 5
Texas: 2
Arizona: 2
Oregon: 1

2017 Class (18 total)

California: 7
Washington: 6
Oregon: 2
Utah: 2
Australia: 1

So if you think about it going forward from the standpoint of "how do we get to 18 scholarships each year," you're looking at 5 to 8 recruits per year coming from the State of Washington. I think the 7-8 recruits that we have gotten out of California in the 2016 and 2017 classes is probably more representative going forward of what it is that we're looking for. As Dennis noted in going through what we've pulled out of California, the 2014 and 2015 classes we needed numbers and a lot of the guys that we got out of California we're guys that were lower tier guys that we were recruiting against the bottom half of the conference ... THESE ARE GUYS WE DON'T WANT GOING FORWARD. So thinking of the half dozen or so guys we need to get from California going forward, you're probably looking at 2/3 of the guys we're getting coming out of the Bay Area and the other half coming out of SoCal and largely Orange County (which when you think about it, Orange County on the whole probably fits best the type of kid/family where our messaging is going to resonate the best with).

Outside of California and Washington, we haven't taken any more than 2 recruits in a year from any other location. As long as Oregon is a dumpster fire, we should have an expectation of being able to pull a recruit from there. If there are any strong recruits in Idaho or Montana we should be in a good position to get them. It's important for us to have at least some kind of presence in Arizona and Texas to at least make sure that we are gauging interest and capitalizing if we can find someone that is receptive to our message. The area where we have been really poor on recently is in Hawaii ... we need to figure out how to make inroads there. There's emerging numbers of talent in Utah and that's becoming a very competitive location for recruits. And of course, there's always random locations where we'll get interest from someone that plays itself out.

But the reality is that as long as we're really going after 18 on a consistent basis, the balance of our recruiting is centered on keeping the elite in-state kids home (should happen relatively easily with our success continuing) and maintaining our foot print in the areas of California where we've been successful. We need to focus on making sure we get a strong recruiting option to replace Hamden and eventually Lake. Whenever the 10th assistant coach gets approved by the NCAA we need to make sure that we're hiring a heavy recruiter in that position to help us in continuing to build networks and relationships to be able to get that random elite player from here or there that wants to go to UW. Our biggest risk is forgetting what makes us successful from a recruiting standpoint. What we have right now is largely sustainable IMO.
Click to expand...

This is a very good post Tequila and I agree with
most of it. My small disagreement is with the ideal
class number. 17-19 every year indicates stability
but not necessarily quality. I would rather see 22-23
with 4 or 5 going early NFL entry or 4 star players
transferring due to lack of playing time. That's when
you know you've arrived at USC, Alabama talent level.
 
I can't chincredible @Dennis_DeYoung's post enough ...

More to the point I think it's important to look at the composition of the classes under Pete since 2014 to understand how we're recruiting. I think the key takeaway from Dennis is that our ability to recruit LA is pretty much an effort in futility ... we need to put the work in down there "just in case" we get lucky and are able to pull somebody out ... particularly when USC/UCLA recruit outside of LA.

In both the 2016 and 2017 classes, UW took 18 players. The expectation in the 2018 class is that we'll take around 18 as well. Pete stated during the Signing Day press conference that classes between 15-20 are the desired levels going forward. And given that we don't have significant attrition, it's realistic that more often than not we will be in this range going forward.

What follows is a look of our recruits by location during Pete's tenure:

2014 Class (23 total)

California: 16
Washington: 5
Idaho: 1
Wyoming: 1

2015 Class (25 total)

California: 13
Washington: 8
Oregon: 1
Idaho: 1
Texas: 1
Wyoming: 1

2016 Class (18 total)

California: 8
Washington: 5
Texas: 2
Arizona: 2
Oregon: 1

2017 Class (18 total)

California: 7
Washington: 6
Oregon: 2
Utah: 2
Australia: 1

So if you think about it going forward from the standpoint of "how do we get to 18 scholarships each year," you're looking at 5 to 8 recruits per year coming from the State of Washington. I think the 7-8 recruits that we have gotten out of California in the 2016 and 2017 classes is probably more representative going forward of what it is that we're looking for. As Dennis noted in going through what we've pulled out of California, the 2014 and 2015 classes we needed numbers and a lot of the guys that we got out of California we're guys that were lower tier guys that we were recruiting against the bottom half of the conference ... THESE ARE GUYS WE DON'T WANT GOING FORWARD. So thinking of the half dozen or so guys we need to get from California going forward, you're probably looking at 2/3 of the guys we're getting coming out of the Bay Area and the other half coming out of SoCal and largely Orange County (which when you think about it, Orange County on the whole probably fits best the type of kid/family where our messaging is going to resonate the best with).

Outside of California and Washington, we haven't taken any more than 2 recruits in a year from any other location. As long as Oregon is a dumpster fire, we should have an expectation of being able to pull a recruit from there. If there are any strong recruits in Idaho or Montana we should be in a good position to get them. It's important for us to have at least some kind of presence in Arizona and Texas to at least make sure that we are gauging interest and capitalizing if we can find someone that is receptive to our message. The area where we have been really poor on recently is in Hawaii ... we need to figure out how to make inroads there. There's emerging numbers of talent in Utah and that's becoming a very competitive location for recruits. And of course, there's always random locations where we'll get interest from someone that plays itself out.

But the reality is that as long as we're really going after 18 on a consistent basis, the balance of our recruiting is centered on keeping the elite in-state kids home (should happen relatively easily with our success continuing) and maintaining our foot print in the areas of California where we've been successful. We need to focus on making sure we get a strong recruiting option to replace Hamden and eventually Lake. Whenever the 10th assistant coach gets approved by the NCAA we need to make sure that we're hiring a heavy recruiter in that position to help us in continuing to build networks and relationships to be able to get that random elite player from here or there that wants to go to UW. Our biggest risk is forgetting what makes us successful from a recruiting standpoint. What we have right now is largely sustainable IMO.
Click to expand...

This is a very good post Tequila and I agree with
most of it. My small disagreement is with the ideal
class number. 17-19 every year indicates stability
but not necessarily quality. I would rather see 22-23
with 4 or 5 going early NFL entry or 4 star players
transferring due to lack of playing time. That's when
you know you've arrived at USC, Alabama talent level.
Click to expand...

I think that's ultimately where you will see it, somewhere in that 18-22 range. It's a tricky calculation but, ultimately, I think we all know that there is a relatively profound difference between 18-22 and 24-27 every year.
 
Bama usually is in the 25 a year range. Tell you what though.
USC is typically around 20. I would be thrilled with
classes of 20 anywhere near SC quality.
 
Bama usually is in the 25 a year range. Tell you what though.
USC is typically around 20. I would be thrilled with
classes of 20 anywhere near SC quality.
Click to expand...

Bama has huge attrition because of playing time and players being told to leave.
I doubt we can recruit on SC level on consistent basis, we might have year once in a while that is on that level.
 
A few thoughts on this:

-There are really different parts of SoCal: OC, IE, SD, LA and from the Valley North.

-They are all slightly different in terms of our abilities to pull guys from there.

-UCLA does well with Valley North guys and 'ok' everywhere else.

-USC kills with all these guys, but particularly LA and OC.

-We get killed in LA and when—for a brief shining moment—we didn't, we got some great recruits.

-One thing that helps us is when USC and UCLA start recruiting more in Texas and Florida (etc) than in SoCal.

Here's how we've done in SoCal recently:
(only counting kids other people wanted; doesn't matter where they're from if we offer kids no one wants and win)

2017 (3): Taylor, McKinney and Bynum
They were all from the OC. Jimmy Lake is both position coach and area recruiter for OC, so 2 out of 3 were that way.

2016 (4): McGrew, Love, Wattenberg, Pleasant
We got 2 from the OC, 2 from the IE (Love, Pleasant). Boner is both Pleasant's position coach and area recruiter.

So... in terms of beating LA schools for kids here's what we've done by region:

OC - We've done 'ok' getting kids out of the Trinity League.
IE - We got Love.
SD - Fuck no.
LA - lololololol
Valley North - No one.

This is one basic reason why you can cross of the list any kids from LA and generally SoCal unless Jimmy Lake is their position coach. We've only recruited DBs consistently well.

That said, we have done really well in the state of Washington and decently in NorCal. I would say improving our recruiting in NorCal, Oregon and Utah is more realistic and possible than in SoCal. Unless a kid is a DB, kids in SoCal seem pretty unrealistic for us (pending the WR hire).
Click to expand...

Not to get all Los Angeles Geography Superiority Guy up in here, but the St. John Bosco kids - Hale, McGrew, and Bynum - are way more LA than OC. The Trinity league Bosco plays in has teams from the OC in it, but Bosco is in Bellflower which is basically Compton-adjacent. As a parochial school they can pull fro everywhere, and Hale, McGrew, and Bynum all lived in non-OC cities (Bellflower, Torrance, Long Beach).

Pulling Bosco kids is actually pretty impressive in terms of beating LA schools. Well at least in the case of the one that actually had offers from UCLA and SC and wasn't a dope fiend or midget Colombian.
 
Bama usually is in the 25 a year range. Tell you what though.
USC is typically around 20. I would be thrilled with
classes of 20 anywhere near SC quality.
Click to expand...

Just fuck USC. Fuck them. That is all.
Click to expand...
You better be able to fuck them in
the conference championship game
cuz that's where they're gonna be.
 
Bama usually is in the 25 a year range. Tell you what though.
USC is typically around 20. I would be thrilled with
classes of 20 anywhere near SC quality.
Click to expand...

Bama has huge attrition because of playing time and players being told to leave.
I doubt we can recruit on SC level on consistent basis, we might have year once in a while that is on that level.
Click to expand...

That's why I used the words "anywhere near".
Coaching will have to make up that gap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top