Washington vs Oregon recruiting dick measuring contest

I think Oregon got more substance in this class than what they've had in recent years (Taggart/Helfrich)

Oregon's recruiting is going in the right direction. Did they beat Washington?...in some areas. Did Washington beat Oregon?...in some areas. I think you are greatly underestimating how good some of Oregon's recruits are. Players like Eaford. I think Eaford is a stud. We can talk about Pittman, and Delgado, but the WR I'm actually most excited about is JR Waters. He tore it up at Oregon's SNL practice. He isn't highly touted, but he's 6'3" and very athletic. He has the most upside of Oregon's entire WR class. Cale Millen has also proven to be better than originally thought. He wasn't even a top 600 player when he picked Oregon, but is now around 300.

Even with all this what are we arguing about? Both teams finished roughly in the top 10 in recruiting this year, and had more 4 and 5 stars than the rest of the conference combined. I actually celebrate this, because we finally might get the rivalry we have all missed since the very early 2000's. Comparing everybody else west of Texas, we are comparing one Magnum vs another. I think it's close enough that we leave it to the field to decide.
Click to expand...

Well - I really agree with your last point here... our classes are, in essence and in terms of raw material, equivalent.

There is some self-selection bias which we probably have some right to believe helps us (given Pete's success and hit rate), but that's hard to know.

Ultimately, I think of it as tiers and if you look at the 247 ratings, there were 3 teams that were clearly above the pack: tOSU, Bama and UGA (all 93+ avg) Then Penn State was a good bit above 91. But then you move to teams .89+ (basically averaging a 4-star) and we are right in there with about 10 other teams. So that's the tier we're in.

From here on, it's about development, fit with scheme, coaching, etc...

The one thing I hate about these averages is that just a simple fucking weighting algorithm should really adjust these.

#1 - They should not allow 2 QBs to count, just take the highest one.

#2 - They should not weight the #29 player in Clemson's class equally to the #1 player. That screwed Clemson this year because taking some flyers on guys who are like .82s shouldn't cancel out guys that are .98s.

If you look at how many players typically make it through to the end from a given class it's about 18. So one way to do this would be to average the first 17-19 whatever, then put everyone below that as 1 player and add that to the average. You could also just weight it based on empirical performance, but that would actually take them knowing what they are doing (we have enough data to easily tell how players perform based on rating; you could take that and weight each player based on their expected performance)... however, that's a little over the top for me.

#3 - Get the fucking kickers out of it. Until we really know who is going to be good (it's fucking important - it's just we have no fucking idea) and have a good way to rate them, let's not just punish people for taking kickers.

 
Ma'ae sucks. His film sucks. He's soft. He fell to Oregon. They were his best committable offer. In no way did UW ever want Ma'ae over Trice. They never even brought Ma'ae up for a visit. A lot of schools just offered him without seriously recruiting him. I firmly believe Oregon was his best committable option. Latu was also UW's #1 OLB target so I don't see how Oregon beat UW at OLB recruiting? If our coaches are great at evaluating talent and they got Latu who they preferred over Kayvon and Trice who they preferred over Ma'ae and had to beat Notre Dame for, how is that not an overall win for UW in comparison to Oregon? I think in 2-3 years it will be abundantly clear Latu and Trice combined are better than KT and Ma'ae.
 
Last edited:
I think Oregon got more substance in this class than what they've had in recent years (Taggart/Helfrich)

Oregon's recruiting is going in the right direction. Did they beat Washington?...in some areas. Did Washington beat Oregon?...in some areas. I think you are greatly underestimating how good some of Oregon's recruits are. Players like Eaford. I think Eaford is a stud. We can talk about Pittman, and Delgado, but the WR I'm actually most excited about is JR Waters. He tore it up at Oregon's SNL practice. He isn't highly touted, but he's 6'3" and very athletic. He has the most upside of Oregon's entire WR class. Cale Millen has also proven to be better than originally thought. He wasn't even a top 600 player when he picked Oregon, but is now around 300.

Even with all this what are we arguing about? Both teams finished roughly in the top 10 in recruiting this year, and had more 4 and 5 stars than the rest of the conference combined. I actually celebrate this, because we finally might get the rivalry we have all missed since the very early 2000's. Comparing everybody else west of Texas, we are comparing one Magnum vs another. I think it's close enough that we leave it to the field to decide.
Click to expand...

Well - I really agree with your last point here... our classes are, in essence and in terms of raw material, equivalent.

There is some self-selection bias which we probably have some right to believe helps us (given Pete's success and hit rate), but that's hard to know.

Ultimately, I think of it as tiers and if you look at the 247 ratings, there were 3 teams that were clearly above the pack: tOSU, Bama and UGA (all 93+ avg) Then Penn State was a good bit above 91. But then you move to teams .89+ (basically averaging a 4-star) and we are right in there with about 10 other teams. So that's the tier we're in.

From here on, it's about development, fit with scheme, coaching, etc...

The one thing I hate about these averages is that just a simple fucking weighting algorithm should really adjust these.

#1 - They should not allow 2 QBs to count, just take the highest one.

#2 - They should not weight the #29 player in Clemson's class equally to the #1 player. That screwed Clemson this year because taking some flyers on guys who are like .82s shouldn't cancel out guys that are .98s.

If you look at how many players typically make it through to the end from a given class it's about 18. So one way to do this would be to average the first 17-19 whatever, then put everyone below that as 1 player and add that to the average. You could also just weight it based on empirical performance, but that would actually take them knowing what they are doing (we have enough data to easily tell how players perform based on rating; you could take that and weight each player based on their expected performance)... however, that's a little over the top for me.

#3 - Get the fucking kickers out of it. Until we really know who is going to be good (it's fucking important - it's just we have no fucking idea) and have a good way to rate them, let's not just punish people for taking kickers.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on #3, disagree on the others. Having two stud QB's >> one stud QB. I get that theres' a point of diminishing returns, but I don't think the second QB is completely superfluous.

On #2, you should be graded on how you fill the scholarship you are trying to fill. If Clemson or UW wants to take fliers on guys fine, but that should absolutely factor into the rankings if other teams are filling those last slots with real talent.

How I'd do the rankings is simple: Drop specialists completely from the rankings. Average the score ranking (not the star ranking) of the other signed recruits, but have some sort of penalty if a school takes such a small class that they aren't filling their projected opening schoolies.
 
Last edited:
Looking at the dreck that UCLA, Arizona, and even USC picked up this year...You could make the argument that the top 5 teams in the conference are in the North (Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Stanford, and Cal)

I'm LIPO on Herm and ASU. But on a neutral field, how many of you would bet against one of those 5 against the South champion?
 
Last edited:
I think Oregon got more substance in this class than what they've had in recent years (Taggart/Helfrich)

Oregon's recruiting is going in the right direction. Did they beat Washington?...in some areas. Did Washington beat Oregon?...in some areas. I think you are greatly underestimating how good some of Oregon's recruits are. Players like Eaford. I think Eaford is a stud. We can talk about Pittman, and Delgado, but the WR I'm actually most excited about is JR Waters. He tore it up at Oregon's SNL practice. He isn't highly touted, but he's 6'3" and very athletic. He has the most upside of Oregon's entire WR class. Cale Millen has also proven to be better than originally thought. He wasn't even a top 600 player when he picked Oregon, but is now around 300.

Even with all this what are we arguing about? Both teams finished roughly in the top 10 in recruiting this year, and had more 4 and 5 stars than the rest of the conference combined. I actually celebrate this, because we finally might get the rivalry we have all missed since the very early 2000's. Comparing everybody else west of Texas, we are comparing one Magnum vs another. I think it's close enough that we leave it to the field to decide.
Click to expand...

Well - I really agree with your last point here... our classes are, in essence and in terms of raw material, equivalent.

There is some self-selection bias which we probably have some right to believe helps us (given Pete's success and hit rate), but that's hard to know.

Ultimately, I think of it as tiers and if you look at the 247 ratings, there were 3 teams that were clearly above the pack: tOSU, Bama and UGA (all 93+ avg) Then Penn State was a good bit above 91. But then you move to teams .89+ (basically averaging a 4-star) and we are right in there with about 10 other teams. So that's the tier we're in.

From here on, it's about development, fit with scheme, coaching, etc...

The one thing I hate about these averages is that just a simple fucking weighting algorithm should really adjust these.

#1 - They should not allow 2 QBs to count, just take the highest one.

#2 - They should not weight the #29 player in Clemson's class equally to the #1 player. That screwed Clemson this year because taking some flyers on guys who are like .82s shouldn't cancel out guys that are .98s.

If you look at how many players typically make it through to the end from a given class it's about 18. So one way to do this would be to average the first 17-19 whatever, then put everyone below that as 1 player and add that to the average. You could also just weight it based on empirical performance, but that would actually take them knowing what they are doing (we have enough data to easily tell how players perform based on rating; you could take that and weight each player based on their expected performance)... however, that's a little over the top for me.

#3 - Get the fucking kickers out of it. Until we really know who is going to be good (it's fucking important - it's just we have no fucking idea) and have a good way to rate them, let's not just punish people for taking kickers.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on #3, disagree on the others. Having two stud QB's >> one stud QB. I get that theres' a point of diminishing returns, but I don't think the second QB is completely superfluous.

On #2, you should be graded on how you fill the scholarship you are trying to fill. If Clemson or UW wants to take fliers on guys fine, but that should absolutely factor into the rankings if other teams are filling those last slots with real talent.

How I'd do the rankings is simple: Drop specialists completely from the rankings. Average the score ranking (not the star ranking) of the other signed recruits, but have some sort of penalty if a school takes such a small class that they aren't filling their projected opening schoolies.
Click to expand...

You're really wrong on the first two...

#1 you're wrong because you are FS. I'm including the top QB in the class. If you get two 5* .99 QBs it makes no fucking sense to rank that as two players. Ranking it as one captures the issue. QBs are generally over-rated as well. It does not make any fucking sense to include 2 QBs as separate recruits. They will not both play equally.

#2 makes no fucking sense. Again. You are insanely wrong about this. Weighing players you KNOW A PRIORI are less likely to have an impact on your team the same as players YOU KNOW A PRIORI ARE is just a way to make these ratings inaccurate and nothing else. That is a fucking statistical fact.

THEIR #27 PLAYER IS NOT NEARLY AS LIKELY TO IMPACT THE TEAM YOU MORON. That is the issue. It's very unlikely to actually BE A SLOT. Guys wash out. The other problem is that you are still stuck in the fucktarded version of reality where individual player ratings matter. It's only important in AGGREGATE so we should try to improve the AGGREGATE prediction, not punish them for recruiting low rated players if they get high rated players. JESUS FUCK.

That is fucking full on stats retard bullshit.

Your point doesn't even make any fucking sense... You just like the lazy fan version 'I don't understand kickers and it fucks up our rating, so get rid of them, position players matter more!' - foh with that.

The fact is, if we had an accurate prediction of kicker performance, they should probably be weighted MORE than what other players are.
 
Delgado makes baccellia look like Megatron

Oh and wasn't someone here saying Wright was a dummy and might not qualify?
 
Let me go over this slowly...

Team A has a distribution of scores that are equally 100s and 00s and you have fourteen players at 100s and fourteen at 0s - you get an average of 50.

Team B has a distribution of scores that are all 60s, such that you signed 28 players who are rated 60s - you get an average of 60.

Say you do this for 5 years. Which team do you expect to be more successful, Team A or Team B?

BUT TEAM A IS TEN POINTS LOWER ON AVERAGE EVERY YEAR!!!

This is the issue with counting low scores as much as high ones.
 
Last edited:
Delgado makes baccellia look like Megatron

Oh and wasn't someone here saying Wright was a dummy and might not qualify?
Click to expand...

The Wright thing was weird and could e plain why UW didnt try try hard to flip him. From what I read, he did not play a down his entire senior year because he tried to transfer 3 different times. At one point, he tried to transfer back to his original school do he could play and the coach told him to fuck off.

I also read something about him taking classes at a community college in Eugene to get his eligibility.

Funa was another guy that didnt play at all due to injury.
 
Delgado makes baccellia look like Megatron

Oh and wasn't someone here saying Wright was a dummy and might not qualify?
Click to expand...

The Wright thing was weird and could e plain why UW didnt try try hard to flip him. From what I read, he did not play a down his entire senior year because he tried to transfer 3 different times. At one point, he tried to transfer back to his original school do he could play and the coach told him to fuck off.

I also read something about him taking classes at a community college in Eugene to get his eligibility.

Funa was another guy that didnt play at all due to injury.
Click to expand...

Holy fuck, that sure as shit takes some shine of that .97 rating. Kinda crazy that you can do a few underwear Olympics then not play a down and still get your knob polished by the teen boy experts
 
Another factor into why Oregon's class is rated so high is because they have 5 players in the top 100 composite. The fact that two of them didn't play at all their senior year leads me to believe they're overranked.

#2 - Kayvon
#41 - Wright
#63 - Jonah
#68 - Funa
#94 - Pittman
 
Another factor into why Oregon's class is rated so high is because they have 5 players in the top 100 composite. The fact that two of them didn't play at all their senior year leads me to believe they're overranked.

#2 - Kayvon
#41 - Wright
#63 - Jonah
#68 - Funa
#94 - Pittman
Click to expand...

Nah - they're good. Those are good players. If you move them all down 100 spots, it's still a big time class. Don't be a Doog.
 
hqdefault.jpg

 
Comparing classes by comparing the position groups is fucking stupid. Teams have different needs each year.
 
Sorry but P
With the addition of Puka, I'm calling it a tie for WR recruiting. Yes the Ducks got four WRs including three 4* but I think among the six WRs signed between the two schools, Puka and Davis were our top two. And if the recruiting analysts are to be believed, we passed on both Pittman and Delgado.

Position by position UW wins 6-2-2 with the two losses at TE and OLB/BUCK.
Click to expand...

Puka is the best out of the group.
Click to expand...

By a mile.

Nacua was a huge, huge addition and raises the overall grade of the class way more than a WR normally would. The need for dominant WR, in terms of taking that next step, is really glaring and he's that kind of talent. Pittman and Delgado are JAGS and not even comparable to him.
Click to expand...

With the addition of Puka, I'm calling it a tie for WR recruiting. Yes the Ducks got four WRs including three 4* but I think among the six WRs signed between the two schools, Puka and Davis were our top two. And if the recruiting analysts are to be believed, we passed on both Pittman and Delgado.

Position by position UW wins 6-2-2 with the two losses at TE and OLB/BUCK.
Click to expand...

Puka is the best out of the group.
Click to expand...

By a mile.

Nacua was a huge, huge addition and raises the overall grade of the class way more than a WR normally would. The need for dominant WR, in terms of taking that next step, is really glaring and he's that kind of talent. Pittman and Delgado are JAGS and not even comparable to him.
Click to expand...

With the addition of Puka, I'm calling it a tie for WR recruiting. Yes the Ducks got four WRs including three 4* but I think among the six WRs signed between the two schools, Puka and Davis were our top two. And if the recruiting analysts are to be believed, we passed on both Pittman and Delgado.

Position by position UW wins 6-2-2 with the two losses at TE and OLB/BUCK.
Click to expand...

Puka is the best out of the group.
Click to expand...

Rather easily.

Davis isn't #2 though[/b].
Click to expand...

Not in the rankings but I think he was higher on the coaches' board than the other guys. Didn't we accept his commitment around the same time we started to "cool" on Delgado and Pittman?
Click to expand...

With the addition of Puka, I'm calling it a tie for WR recruiting. Yes the Ducks got four WRs including three 4* but I think among the six WRs signed between the two schools, Puka and Davis were our top two. And if the recruiting analysts are to be believed, we passed on both Pittman and Delgado.

Position by position UW wins 6-2-2 with the two losses at TE and OLB/BUCK.
Click to expand...

Puka is the best out of the group.
Click to expand...

Rather easily.

Davis isn't #2 though[/b].
Click to expand...

Not in the rankings but I think he was higher on the coaches' board than the other guys. Didn't we accept his commitment around the same time we started to "cool" on Delgado and Pittman?
Click to expand...

Sorry but Willhoite and Pittman are ranked higher than Nakua with Delgado right behind.

With all due respect your overall recruiting class talent and returning WR talent is really sub par.

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top