I'm down
I promise to base my ranking purely on social media presence, sizzle, and camp performance.
I promise to base my ranking purely on social media presence, sizzle, and camp performance.
To Fellow TBS'ers: Re-Ranking Recruiting Classes Survey Request
- Thread starter CokeGreaterThanPepsi
- Start date
CokeGreaterThanPepsi
New Fish
I'll be sending out an online survey with a list of all the players that are leaving either by graduation/turning pro or dismissed/transferring. All you will have to do is rate their contribution to the UW football program on a scale of 0-5.
I'm doing 0-5 to compare how they came in to UW rated by Scout.com, but the initial HS ranking should have no bearing on how you rate them. Just base your rating off of their performance at UW alone, nothing else.
I'm doing 0-5 to compare how they came in to UW rated by Scout.com, but the initial HS ranking should have no bearing on how you rate them. Just base your rating off of their performance at UW alone, nothing else.
Dennis_DeYoung
New Fish
We've talked about this before and I had suggested that, a long time ago, I think it was Dick Baird (it was some coach) who told me they used a 5-point system for ranking careers...
I'll do it for 2010 since everyone's done (save for Dry Eyes) now:
1 - Did not contribute in any meaningful way (Montana, Lagafuaina, Pelluer, Gilliland, Burnett, Fogerson, Kearse)
2 - Career backup, poor starter (Criste, Atoe, Potoa'e, Stevenson, Callier, Kohler, Campbell, Hartvigson)
3 - Solid starter, maybe honorable mention All Conference (Timu, Ducre, Hatchie, Smith, Tanigawa, Fuimaono, Riva, Shirley)
4 - All Conference player, first or second team (Parker, A.Hudson)
5 - All American on any team (Kikaha)
You can't really rate guys who had to retire from injuries (Porter) or guys who didn't make it in (Young, Waters).
The guys who are hard to rank here are Shirley (weird career), Atoe (sort of a 2.5) and both Sean Parker and Andrew Hudson (sort of 3.5s).
CokeGreaterThanPepsi
New Fish
That is exactly what I am thinking Dennis. I am just adding the zero because I believe there should be a penalty for bringing in a guy like Garrett Gilliland or Nathan Dean (who, imo, are 0's) to your program only to find out they really, really, really suck.
H_D
New Fish
I think the hardest ranking will be those in the 2-3 range. For the 1 and 4-5, those are pretty clear, but those guys that are starters without impressive "external" accolades I would submit that they need to be looked at in context of who they were competing with for playing time.
Probably the best example that I can think of for the negative of this is the secondary of the 2005-2008 era. Yeah they were starters, but they were the best of a very bad situation. Some of those guys I would hesitate to even give them a 2 as a "poor starter" because if they were in most other (then) Pac-10 programs they would have not seen a lot of playing time.
Keeping with the shitty secondary example, how do you rank a guy like Dashon Goldson? He earned honorable mention Pac-10, but his career was somewhat limited by injury and the all around shittyness of those around him. He was probably better than his stats and team record indicated (quite honestly) as evidenced by how his career "blew up" in the NFL.
TierbsHsotBoobs
New Fish
Felix Sweetman is a 17 on this scale.
Dennis_DeYoung
New Fish
Well, I think 1 captures that because it's 'didn't contribute'. It's hard to know why people didn't contribute; in the case of Gililland, everyone was convinced he was the next CORD TENNYSON™ when he started as a true frosh. Then he got flushed because he sucked.
With Dean, supposedly the guy with more physical talent than Banner and Garnett just lost his boner for football.
The question is, with guys like Chris Young, do you give them a 0 because you wasted effort in recruiting them and they didn't come? Or do you just ignore it?
MrsPetersen
New Fish
I think it might be important to grade that, wasting time recruiting/signing guys like Chris Young and Andrew Basham
Last edited:
Tequilla
Active poster
I think 0 makes sense for the reasons that Mrs. Petersen noted ... if you're wasting your time recruiting them, then in theory that is a spot not only on the roster, but energies that could be used in recruiting for better players.
I also think that for guys that fall between 2 and 3, or 3 and 4, etc. that it makes sense to have partial grades in the 2.5 or 3.5 range.
Yes, that makes it a little more subjective but I also think that it is more accurate in placing someone that is somewhere between the two spots in between then either under/over valuing the player.
I also think that for guys that fall between 2 and 3, or 3 and 4, etc. that it makes sense to have partial grades in the 2.5 or 3.5 range.
Yes, that makes it a little more subjective but I also think that it is more accurate in placing someone that is somewhere between the two spots in between then either under/over valuing the player.
I don't get why people knock callier so much. He would have easily been our best rb early in the season until d wash figured it out. He catches passes out of the back field and knows how to see a hole. He's better than a 2, that's for certain.
Last edited:
Tequilla
Active poster
Callier's the definition of a 2.5 guy to me. He'll never be a full blown starter but he filled a role (particularly when healthy) of being the 2nd RB and a reasonable option on 3rd downs as a RB. To me a 2 is a guy that was more or less a warm body and not much of a contributor on the field. I see value in guys that are important backups and play on special teams.
He was starting over Sankey before injury. He has a great ypc, i don't think we've ever seen him play enough to write him off as nothing more than a backup.
He had Polk then Sankey to compete with. 2 of the better backs in uw history. At the very least he's a great change of pace back, but I'm not going to say that is his ceiling when all he's done is produce. He's a 3.
Tequilla
Active poster
If I was deciding between a 2 or a 3 for Callier, it'd definitely be a 3.
By definition, most teams will have very similar rankings depending on where you put players on that scale if you don't apply some subjective judgments.
A great example being Jamaal Kearse as a 1. That's ridiculous. Kearse was a strong contributor in special teams and depth player at LB. Being a consistent contributor, even in special teams, is a valuable component of a team.
Comparing how they rate after their career to how they rated as recruits is the most interesting thing about this kind of exercise. I want to evaluate recruiting, that's why I hang around on this tbs board. The scale has to be comparable for that to be meaningful, and you have to rate everyone that signed.
Guys that never showed up should get a zero. Guys that showed up but never saw the field, either because they left early or just sucked, should get a 1. If they play meaningful minutes at some point but suck overall they get 2....and so on.
Guys that never showed up should get a zero. Guys that showed up but never saw the field, either because they left early or just sucked, should get a 1. If they play meaningful minutes at some point but suck overall they get 2....and so on.
CokeGreaterThanPepsi
New Fish
I think we won't use .5's in this format, because with the number of people we have doing this it should get sorted out pretty well. Some will vote 2, some 3, in the end it will average out.
CokeGreaterThanPepsi
New Fish
@Section8 will you want in on the survey? You responded but have not indicated.
CokeGreaterThanPepsi
New Fish
Running list:
Myself
Chuck
Tequilla
H_D
Dennis_DeYoung
kh83
BayDawg
Passion
claycha
doogles
bananasnblondes
Grundle
MrsPetersen
RoadDawg55
Section8
Paging @DNC, @Whatshouldicareabout, @TTJ, @heretobeatmychest. Let me know if you want to participate.
Myself
Chuck
Tequilla
H_D
Dennis_DeYoung
kh83
BayDawg
Passion
claycha
doogles
bananasnblondes
Grundle
MrsPetersen
RoadDawg55
Section8
Paging @DNC, @Whatshouldicareabout, @TTJ, @heretobeatmychest. Let me know if you want to participate.
Last edited: