To Fellow TBS'ers: Re-Ranking Recruiting Classes Survey Request

You're a doog if you give Callier a 3. He was a backup his whole career. A fucking backup for his entire career. That's not a 3. A 3 is a 'solid starter who may get some honorable mention All-Conference recognition'.

When the fuck did Callier even sniff All-Conference? When did he start and then not get replaced by someone else almost immediately?

If you are a 5th year senior and you can't clearly beat out DWash and Lavon Coleman you are not a 3.

Vince Weathersby was a 3. Caller is a 2. It's easy. He's the definition of a 2.
 
Should I post after the fact how everyone voted, or should it be kept secret? I think I should post the survey results after. That way @Dennis_DeYoung can yell at all of you idiots.
 
Should I post after the fact how everyone voted, or should it be kept secret? I think I should post the survey results after. That way @Dennis_DeYoung can yell at all of you idiots.
Click to expand...

YOU GUYS ARE ALL IDIOTS EXCEPT ME!!! I THOUGHT THAT WAS OBVIOUS!!
 
I think it's fair to have a master list by players.

In looking back at Callier's stats, I think it's probably more fair to judge him as a 2 than a 3. He wasn't worthless as a player (that a 2 would suggest that he was), but he also was nothing more than a role player (which wouldn't make him a 3). If you mark him as a 3, then what you are saying is that he performed his role well (barring the injuries). If you mark him as a 2, you are saying that he was never a starter. I tend to be a little more kind to players that performed the role that they were asked to perform and not hold it against them if they weren't a front line player - not everybody will be that player.

Bottom line is that he's a bit of an in-between from a judgment standpoint ... just like he was as a player.
 
Should I post after the fact how everyone voted, or should it be kept secret? I think I should post the survey results after. That way @Dennis_DeYoung can yell at all of you idiots.
Click to expand...

Post how everyone voted. The disagreements are part of the fun.
 
I think it's fair to have a master list by players.

In looking back at Callier's stats, I think it's probably more fair to judge him as a 2 than a 3. He wasn't worthless as a player (that a 2 would suggest that he was), but he also was nothing more than a role player (which wouldn't make him a 3). If you mark him as a 3, then what you are saying is that he performed his role well (barring the injuries). If you mark him as a 2, you are saying that he was never a starter. I tend to be a little more kind to players that performed the role that they were asked to perform and not hold it against them if they weren't a front line player - not everybody will be that player.

Bottom line is that he's a bit of an in-between from a judgment standpoint ... just like he was as a player.
Click to expand...

A 3 IMO is a legitimate starter. Everette Thompson (low 3) or John Timu would be 3's. Callier was never a starter and has hardly even played since his sophomore year.
 
Last edited:
I motion that this first-ever HHB TBS re-ranking recruiting class survey effort be called:

"The Jesse Callier Commemorative Post-Collegiate Career Impact Ranking Initiative".
 
I respect @Tequilla‌ for reconsidering.

It's tempting to sneak players up because you kind of like them or you remember them, but Hatchie is the definition of a 3 in my mind... and he started 3 years!
 
I respect @Tequilla‌ for reconsidering.

It's tempting to sneak players up because you kind of like them or you remember them, but Hatchie is the definition of a 3 in my mind... and he started 3 years!
Click to expand...

It's all very fascinating to see how different people rate different players, I'm already contemplating how to rate certain players that are being discussed. Should be pretty fun to see the results. And also, the goal for this will be to see if we can determine how well coaches develop talent. I think this will be a fun experiment to do every year before signing day.
 
Yes post results by all means. I want to argue with Dennis.
Click to expand...

Well, good luck with that. I tend to win arguments.

Ask Tommy Shaw! Oh wait, he joined my band, kicked me out and took the name of it professionally. Dammit.
 
My big question is this - are we ranking players based on their display of talent, or their on field contribution? Given the Callier debate as our key example, I think in his opportunities he displayed easy three star talent, bordering on four star (he averaged over 5 yards per carry for his career). OTOH, for a combination of factors (here for arguably the greatest back to back run of RB's in UW history, injuries) he didn't get on the field much, so his actual contribution was certainly just that of a 2 star.

I know in the OP it says "All we will be doing is re-ranking players based on their play at UW during their career, however long or short it may be." but that still leaves it open ending. Are we ranking their talent, or re ranking their contributions, or is that in the eye of the beholder?

IMO, the first question is far more compelling than the second. But I'm probably up for it either way. I certainly don't think HH should be doing anything just because it's the way Doog Baird used to do it.
 
Last edited:
My big question is this - are we ranking players based on their display of talent, or their on field contribution? Given the Callier debate as our key example, I think in his opportunities he displayed easy three star talent, bordering on four star (he averaged over 5 yards per carry for his career). OTOH, for a combination of factors (here for arguably the greatest back to back run of RB's in UW history, injuries) he didn't get on the field much, so his actual contribution was certainly just that of a 2 star.

I know in the OP it says "All we will be doing is re-ranking players based on their play at UW during their career, however long or short it may be." but that still leaves it open ending. Are we ranking their talent, or re ranking their contributions, or is that in the eye of the beholder?

IMO, the first question is far more compelling than the second. But I'm probably up for it either way. I certainly don't think HH should be doing anything just because it's the way Doog Baird used to do it.
Click to expand...

Well, no matter what you can say about Dick Baird—he was a pretty decent recruiting coordinator. Also, I'm pretty sure that came from DJ in terms of honesty in evaluation. I remember him saying they looked for objective markers.

Also, I can't imagine how you would 'rate talent'. I mean, does Kasen get a 5 because he had some amazing plays? That's a really weird idea.

I'm surprised I'm surprised about the love for Doog-favorite Callier here, but I guess with the dm.c exodus there are a lot of Doogs here these days. Callier and the FLY SWEEP in our amazing moral victories under Sark were so awesome!!! Except for he was never any good.

Can I give Troy Williams 4-stars because what I think his talent was?
 
I think it's fair to have a master list by players.

In looking back at Callier's stats, I think it's probably more fair to judge him as a 2 than a 3. He wasn't worthless as a player (that a 2 would suggest that he was), but he also was nothing more than a role player (which wouldn't make him a 3). If you mark him as a 3, then what you are saying is that he performed his role well (barring the injuries). If you mark him as a 2, you are saying that he was never a starter. I tend to be a little more kind to players that performed the role that they were asked to perform and not hold it against them if they weren't a front line player - not everybody will be that player.

Bottom line is that he's a bit of an in-between from a judgment standpoint ... just like he was as a player.
Click to expand...

Also, what's this grade inflation shit already? 1 is worthless. 2 is career backup or crappy starter. 3 is solid starter with maybe some all conference mention. 4 is all-conference. 5 is all-american.

I'm on a personal mission to destroy Jesse Callier, apparently.
 
My big question is this - are we ranking players based on their display of talent, or their on field contribution? Given the Callier debate as our key example, I think in his opportunities he displayed easy three star talent, bordering on four star (he averaged over 5 yards per carry for his career). OTOH, for a combination of factors (here for arguably the greatest back to back run of RB's in UW history, injuries) he didn't get on the field much, so his actual contribution was certainly just that of a 2 star.

I know in the OP it says "All we will be doing is re-ranking players based on their play at UW during their career, however long or short it may be." but that still leaves it open ending. Are we ranking their talent, or re ranking their contributions, or is that in the eye of the beholder?

IMO, the first question is far more compelling than the second. But I'm probably up for it either way. I certainly don't think HH should be doing anything just because it's the way Doog Baird used to do it.
Click to expand...

Well, no matter what you can say about Dick Baird—he was a pretty decent recruiting coordinator. Also, I'm pretty sure that came from DJ in terms of honesty in evaluation. I remember him saying they looked for objective markers.

Also, I can't imagine how you would 'rate talent'. I mean, does Kasen get a 5 because he had some amazing plays? That's a really weird idea.

I'm surprised I'm surprised about the love for Doog-favorite Callier here, but I guess with the dm.c exodus there are a lot of Doogs here these days. Callier and the FLY SWEEP in our amazing moral victories under Sark were so awesome!!! Except for he was never any good.

Can I give Troy Williams 4-stars because what I think his talent was?
Click to expand...
Callier averaged over 5 yards per carry in his career. He never averaged below 4.4 yards per carry in a season. He was never *not* good.

I don't think the idea of rating talent should be that hard to grasp, but let me put it another way: Based on what you saw of player x's display of ability, what should their talent ranking have been coming out of high school? Just because Callier was behind Chris Polk and Bishop Sankey most of his career while Rich Alexis started as a true freshman doesn't make Alexis a better RB or worthy of a higher post career star ranking, IMO. Alexis came to a team with a shortage of backs and Callier came to a team with riches at the position. You don't upgrade Alexis for being the tallest midget or downgrade Callier for being the shortest giant.

To me the idea of ranking players off of what they did at UW is boring. We already know what they did, we watched the games, our eyes are as good as @grandpasankey's, etc. The idea of a hindsight look at what kind of talent they really had and where they should have been ranked is much more compelling IMO.

And no, Kasen Williams never displayed close to a 5 star talent. That's my poont.

 
Dennis your contention that anyone with a less damning view of Callier than yours is a doog is just stupid. You're ignoring or just forgot what an effective 2nd back he was as Polk's backup, not to mention his contributions returning and covering kicks. His career was a disappointment due to injuries and because he never followed up his first year promise with further improvement. I'll give you that. He still played some good fucking ball at UW.

But...that's the fun of and the value of doing this with as many opinions as possible. Most of us see most things mostly the same, which is why we're here, but we're still going to disagree on particulars.

I will personally try to factor both production and talent though they won't be weighted the same. Kasen Williams gets good marks for both, because he did put up good numbers for two seasons and did make the odd spectacular play. He gets downgraded a bit because he was a slow WR who couldn't get open down the field and didn't make enough spectacular grabs. All taken together he's going to get a good, not great, rating.
 
I don't think I want to do it based on talent alone, it will be a formula up to you might be the best way to say it, like Chuck said above. I want to find a way to see who develops players the best, and I think the best way to look at that is by looking a lot at their contribution to the team, and yes in some way it will be also by evaluating their perceived talent in the eye of the beholder.

I think the problem with doing it on talent alone is what do you do with the guy that sits on the bench. He might be a super talented player but we don't really get to see him play because he is stoopid or something. When it all comes down to it I think the ratings would be similar anyways whether you base it on talent or production the numbers would probably come up the same.

I don't know, it's a good poont DNC, but I don't think I'll rate on talent, but it will play a part in some way.
 
If you think Callier is good, you're a Doog. Jay Barry was about 40x better than Callier. Name one big play Callier made against a decent opponent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top