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

One question for the bored. How do you rate a guy, say like Timu for example, who plays at pretty much one level (kinda mediocre) for many years, compared to say a guy like Kasen, who is really good one year, and dog shit one year. Or like Kevin Smith, who blows up for his SR year but doesn't do much else. Is a 4 year contributor worth more than a 1 year stud?
Click to expand...

Good question. That's part of the fun I think. I would rate Timu a 3, Smith a 3, and Kasen a 4. Smith could be a 4, but like you said, only one good season.

How about Colin Porter? Two year starter and good player before career ending injury. I think 4, but could see someone rating him a 3 or even 2 because of his limited time.
 
I'll probably have to respectfully decline, I'll be traveling most of January for work. I am intrigued though and again it's a great idea.
 
One question for the bored. How do you rate a guy, say like Timu for example, who plays at pretty much one level (kinda mediocre) for many years, compared to say a guy like Kasen, who is really good one year, and dog shit one year. Or like Kevin Smith, who blows up for his SR year but doesn't do much else. Is a 4 year contributor worth more than a 1 year stud?
Click to expand...

Good question. That's part of the fun I think. I would rate Timu a 3, Smith a 3, and Kasen a 4. Smith could be a 4, but like you said, only one good season.

How about Colin Porter? Two year starter and good player before career ending injury. I think 4, but could see someone rating him a 3 or even 2 because of his limited time.
Click to expand...
Kasen is too damn high.

He was never an all conference type player, even when healthy. He was an above average starter. Solid 3, maybe a 3.5 if we can do half poonts. No way he's a 4, at least not if we're using Dennis DeYoung's system.

I don't really think he's a 4 anyway. Looking at the history of UW receivers (last 25 years) here's how I'd rate them using DDY's system:

5 - Reggie Williams, Mario Bailey
4 - Jerome Pathon, Jermaine Kearse

IMO Kasen would be in the next group with Orlando McKay and ahead of Charles Frederick, Dane Looker, etc. Better than most 3's but not good enough to be a 4 to me.
 
One question for the bored. How do you rate a guy, say like Timu for example, who plays at pretty much one level (kinda mediocre) for many years, compared to say a guy like Kasen, who is really good one year, and dog shit one year. Or like Kevin Smith, who blows up for his SR year but doesn't do much else. Is a 4 year contributor worth more than a 1 year stud?
Click to expand...

Good question. That's part of the fun I think. I would rate Timu a 3, Smith a 3, and Kasen a 4. Smith could be a 4, but like you said, only one good season.

How about Colin Porter? Two year starter and good player before career ending injury. I think 4, but could see someone rating him a 3 or even 2 because of his limited time.
Click to expand...
Kasen is too damn high.

He was never an all conference type player, even when healthy. He was an above average starter. Solid 3, maybe a 3.5 if we can do half poonts. No way he's a 4, at least not if we're using Dennis DeYoung's system.

I don't really think he's a 4 anyway. Looking at the history of UW receivers (last 25 years) here's how I'd rate them using DDY's system:

5 - Reggie Williams, Mario Bailey
4 - Jerome Pathon, Jermaine Kearse

IMO Kasen would be in the next group with Orlando McKay and ahead of Charles Frederick, Dane Looker, etc. Better than most 3's but not good enough to be a 4 to me.
Click to expand...

Disagree, but I understand where you are coming from. 3.5 is probably more accurate, but we can't do half points. I can't rate him the same as Timu.

When Kasen was a freshman, he was the only guy that made plays against Oregon. He was the best player on the field that day. He had a good freshman year and was the #2 WR behind Kearse. That team had other good WR's too, enabling Kasen to be worked in slowly. His stats weren't far behind Kearse's.

Good sophomore year. Shitty OL hurt the downfield passing game, although he also got a lot of targets because ASJ and him were the only options.

Solid junior year. Made multiple incredible, game saving catches against Stanford.

Lost senior year. He was an NFL player before the injury, made big catches, and was productive. Was about the only big game player under Sark.
 
I think we should all decide how we want to rank the players and if we have enough of a sample set it will all sort out in the end.

for me, I'm going to focus simply on what the player meant to UW once its all said and done.

its all in retrospect, total body of work, based off of accomplishment not NFL draft potential, no excuses, no passes for injuries, what did they do while at UW, period. There will be some tough breaks (pun intended Kasen).

guys like gilliland are a 1 because they were a waste of a scholarship. callier is a fucking 2 because he never started and never had a significant impact, timu is a 3 because he started multiple years but teetered between asset and liability which shouldn't happen to a senior, and Sean Parker is a 4 because he started multiple years and was a strength but not a superstar. Shelton and Kikaha are 5s.
 
That's basically how I will do it, "what was their contribution to UW" will be the question I ask myself. Some will just define contribution different though, and that is fine. I think we will have 20 or do respondents, so I am pretty happy with that sample set.
 
I will weight players that were multi-year contributors far more favorably than guys that just blew up with 1 really good year.
 
I think it is best if we don't have set criteria. I like the idea of people defining their own idea of contribution. Plus it should create great debate as we've already seen from the Callier discussion. It will all even out in the end.
 
Ultimately aren't we trying to find the true value of a recruiting class? Was this player worth our time? Was he Pac-12 caliber or lucky his shield didn't read 'Big Sky'? I'm not knocking guys for getting injured, unless it's someone like Nathan Rhodes that the entire country knew he was done.

It's a freak game, who gets hurt who doesn't is up to chance and not indicative if a guy was worth the time or not. A guy who plays competently when called upon is more valuable than a guy who generally sucked but was there forever. The past two staffs were such fuck ups, it's hard to say who slipped through the cracks. We can count Hudson as one for certain.

I'm ranking on could this motherfucker play or not. I'm not giving Callier a 2, because he proved he could play. Kasen gets a 4 because he proved he could play at a very high level and got fucked by unluckiness.

I'm trying to get the number down to the individuals talent, his competence as a d1 player, and then you can debate the fucktardedness or brilliance of how the staff used his individual pieces.
 
For me this whole thing is finding out how well coaches develop players. But I think what you described above will work just fine in determining that also.

For example, the current trajectory for a player like Sidney Jones is probably a 4 or 5 from a contribution level. But that also includes his talent in it as well because he is just a really good player. So I think whether we are rating talent or contribution it will all work out in the end.
 
I'll give it a shot, but only if the Styx guy yells at me afterwards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top