JSeahawks wrote:Taking a break from the Pac-12, Georgia signed 7!! SEVEN!! Five star players. The whole Pac-12 got 4 (all USC).
hawkman wrote:Did the Stanford staff take a year off recruiting?
JSeahawks wrote:hawknation2017 wrote:Chris Petersen and the Huskies are killing it. Never thought he would be this good at recruiting.
By signing day its almost guarantee'd to be 4th in the pac 12, behind USC, UCLA and Oregon.
DomeHawk wrote:JSeahawks wrote:hawknation2017 wrote:Chris Petersen and the Huskies are killing it. Never thought he would be this good at recruiting.
By signing day its almost guarantee'd to be 4th in the pac 12, behind USC, UCLA and Oregon.
Hmmm.....
JSeahawks wrote:DomeHawk wrote:JSeahawks wrote:hawknation2017 wrote:Chris Petersen and the Huskies are killing it. Never thought he would be this good at recruiting.
By signing day its almost guarantee'd to be 4th in the pac 12, behind USC, UCLA and Oregon.
Hmmm.....
Yea, I missed that one. I actually thought UW’s class was done at that point. I didn’t realize they still had room to add more. I also thought at that point the ducks were going to try and fill up all the way to 32. Should have known better then to make guarantees in recruiting.
DomeHawk wrote:
CP likes to bring in 17-20, barring unusual circumstances that keeps classes balanced. The fact that Cristobol didn't do that really works in your favor in my opinion. It's about sustainability, not making a one-year splash.
Do you agree?
I would really like to know, and I am not trying to be critical, how you could have brought in 32 players? I knew there were 22 graduating but where is the attrition on the other 10?
JSeahawks wrote:DomeHawk wrote:
CP likes to bring in 17-20, barring unusual circumstances that keeps classes balanced. The fact that Cristobol didn't do that really works in your favor in my opinion. It's about sustainability, not making a one-year splash.
Do you agree?
Well, honestly I can see both sides. Taggart was all about making a splash. There's no doubt in my mind had he stayed we'd have a top 5 recruiting class. Not number 1, but up there near the top. I think his goal was to put Oregon back on the map and show that its still a destination for kids. A top 5 class would have gotten the attention of future recruits.
Cristobal's approach is probably better for the long term health of the program, cuz like you said its better to keep classes balanced and even.
So my heart would have loved TAggarts approach, it would have been exciting! But my head agree's with what Cristobal has done.I would really like to know, and I am not trying to be critical, how you could have brought in 32 players? I knew there were 22 graduating but where is the attrition on the other 10?
Short answer: We were playing with way less then the max 85 total scholarships this past season.
Long answer: We've lost a ton of guys the last year and a half. 4 were kicked off the team (Darren Carrington, Austin Maloata, Darrian Franklin, Tristen Wallace), 2 medically retired (Zach Okun, Devon Allen), 1 just plain quit (Erick Briscoe Jr), and several transferred. (Jalen Brown, Rutger Reitmaier, Wayne Kirby, Kaleel Oliver, AJ Ofodile, Braxton Burmeister... with Burmeister it hasnt been announced publicly yet, but word is he's leaving). The majority of those guys were underclassmen so it leaves a hole on the roster for this upcoming season.
After signing the 22 players today we have 75 of the 85 scholarships filled so we could have had 10 more if we wanted. Now there's a new rule this year that you can only sign 25 in a class but there's a loophole that you can count early enrollee's towards the previous class. So the goal was to get 7 early enrollee's which would have allowed us 32 in this class.
DomeHawk wrote:JSeahawks wrote:DomeHawk wrote:
CP likes to bring in 17-20, barring unusual circumstances that keeps classes balanced. The fact that Cristobol didn't do that really works in your favor in my opinion. It's about sustainability, not making a one-year splash.
Do you agree?
Well, honestly I can see both sides. Taggart was all about making a splash. There's no doubt in my mind had he stayed we'd have a top 5 recruiting class. Not number 1, but up there near the top. I think his goal was to put Oregon back on the map and show that its still a destination for kids. A top 5 class would have gotten the attention of future recruits.
Cristobal's approach is probably better for the long term health of the program, cuz like you said its better to keep classes balanced and even.
So my heart would have loved TAggarts approach, it would have been exciting! But my head agree's with what Cristobal has done.I would really like to know, and I am not trying to be critical, how you could have brought in 32 players? I knew there were 22 graduating but where is the attrition on the other 10?
Short answer: We were playing with way less then the max 85 total scholarships this past season.
Long answer: We've lost a ton of guys the last year and a half. 4 were kicked off the team (Darren Carrington, Austin Maloata, Darrian Franklin, Tristen Wallace), 2 medically retired (Zach Okun, Devon Allen), 1 just plain quit (Erick Briscoe Jr), and several transferred. (Jalen Brown, Rutger Reitmaier, Wayne Kirby, Kaleel Oliver, AJ Ofodile, Braxton Burmeister... with Burmeister it hasnt been announced publicly yet, but word is he's leaving). The majority of those guys were underclassmen so it leaves a hole on the roster for this upcoming season.
After signing the 22 players today we have 75 of the 85 scholarships filled so we could have had 10 more if we wanted. Now there's a new rule this year that you can only sign 25 in a class but there's a loophole that you can count early enrollee's towards the previous class. So the goal was to get 7 early enrollee's which would have allowed us 32 in this class.
Ok, I get it.
Don't want to belabor the point but when you guys were rated #5 in was WAY early in the process and Alabama was like #24 at that time. And, yes I know, I've said it before, but go look at the top five classes. They all have multiple 5-stars and a high 4 to 3-star ratio, Oregon never had that and it was highly unlikely that it was ever going to. What you had was a LOT of recruits before anyone else did. Look at USC's class, they have ONE (1) 3-star! Georgia, a 4 and 5-star ratio of 22 to 4, Ohio St. 23 to 3, Texas 19 to 8, etc. etc. THAT's what it takes to get a top-5 class these days, even when Taggart was there you had an almost even mix of 4 and 3 stars with ZERO 5-stars.
Sorry, but there was NOTHING to suggest that Oregon was going to get a top-5 class.
Uncle Si wrote:5 star guys were getting "flipped" all day yesterday. Not sure its safe to assume anything in the cattle call of HS recruiting until its over
JSeahawks wrote:Uncle Si wrote:5 star guys were getting "flipped" all day yesterday. Not sure its safe to assume anything in the cattle call of HS recruiting until its over
For sure, but with Willie I think they would have been incoming, not outgoing.
Uncle Si wrote:JSeahawks wrote:Uncle Si wrote:5 star guys were getting "flipped" all day yesterday. Not sure its safe to assume anything in the cattle call of HS recruiting until its over
For sure, but with Willie I think they would have been incoming, not outgoing.
More storied programs with better coaches than Oregon or Taggert lost players yesterday. I dont know much, but i know a. ranking HS players is never a science, 2. signing day is the last day to recruit players
JSeahawks wrote:Interesting that after signing their class yesterday USC is 5 scholarships over the limit, they’ve got some processing to do!
JSeahawks wrote:Uncle Si wrote:JSeahawks wrote:Uncle Si wrote:5 star guys were getting "flipped" all day yesterday. Not sure its safe to assume anything in the cattle call of HS recruiting until its over
For sure, but with Willie I think they would have been incoming, not outgoing.
More storied programs with better coaches than Oregon or Taggert lost players yesterday. I dont know much, but i know a. ranking HS players is never a science, 2. signing day is the last day to recruit players
Technically #2 is not correct. The ducks have a defensive tackle that decommited from tennessee and did not sign anywhere yesterday coming in for a visit next week. Yesterday was just the 1st day they could sign, they have until April 1.
The_Z_Man wrote:Ever notice ESPN rankings differ from everyone else?
They always rank Washington 2 to 5 spots lower than every other ranking list - no matter the year, and in general they do that to most Pac12 schools... except for USC, which they always rank a few spots higher than everyone else - no matter the year.
JSeahawks wrote:The_Z_Man wrote:Ever notice ESPN rankings differ from everyone else?
They always rank Washington 2 to 5 spots lower than every other ranking list - no matter the year, and in general they do that to most Pac12 schools... except for USC, which they always rank a few spots higher than everyone else - no matter the year.
We call it the “Bama bump”. Somehow magically commits ratings all go up after committing to sec schools and go down after committing to Pac-12 schools.
JSeahawks wrote:You can argue with me whether or not Oregon would have landed all those guys, but like I said, 8 of the 10 were already commited, but you cant argue with the math which was done on the class calculator on 247.
DomeHawk wrote:JSeahawks wrote:You can argue with me whether or not Oregon would have landed all those guys, but like I said, 8 of the 10 were already commited, but you cant argue with the math which was done on the class calculator on 247.
Actually, I can argue both:
1. You had early commits, not signees, and we all saw how that played out on signing day. Not only that, but all through the entire process you had an almost even divide among 4-star and 3-star recruits. Show me top-5 classes that have had that.
2. A ranking that is based upon a "calculator," i.e., math, that skews towards quantity over quality is not credible. We are supposed to be ranking how good the class is, not how large it is.
Uncle Si wrote:DomeHawk wrote:JSeahawks wrote:You can argue with me whether or not Oregon would have landed all those guys, but like I said, 8 of the 10 were already commited, but you cant argue with the math which was done on the class calculator on 247.
Actually, I can argue both:
1. You had early commits, not signees, and we all saw how that played out on signing day. Not only that, but all through the entire process you had an almost even divide among 4-star and 3-star recruits. Show me top-5 classes that have had that.
2. A ranking that is based upon a "calculator," i.e., math, that skews towards quantity over quality is not credible. We are supposed to be ranking how good the class is, not how large it is.
i wondered this as well...
Is the ranking not based on some sort of average of the caliber of player? or is a computation of the caliber of all the players brought in?
I saw alot of classes ranked based on 20-21 players. but then a few others were 25+
The_Z_Man wrote:Uncle Si wrote:It was a question, not an argument
Yea, I didn't see an argument either. I think JSeahawks might have mistakenly read something out of context.
JSeahawks wrote: I guarantee you 100% you can get Oregon to a top 5 class with 32 commits and zero 5 stars with a class that was extremely realistic.
DomeHawk wrote:JSeahawks wrote: I guarantee you 100% you can get Oregon to a top 5 class with 32 commits and zero 5 stars with a class that was extremely realistic.
There you go with the guarantees again.
JSeahawks wrote:DomeHawk wrote:JSeahawks wrote: I guarantee you 100% you can get Oregon to a top 5 class with 32 commits and zero 5 stars with a class that was extremely realistic.
There you go with the guarantees again.
Yes. but this one is not hypothetical. it mathematical. I ran it through and it could have happened easily.
JSeahawks wrote:I'm not worked up. I love talking about this stuff. Following recruiting is more interesting to me then following the games themselves. I fully admit that at first I didnt like you, but we're cool now. I respect where you're coming from.
JSeahawks wrote:Sort of off topic, but one smart thing that Taggart did.... That dude really recruited the moms. He worked on the moms just as much as he worked on the players.
Glasgow Seahawk wrote:I forgot to ask. Did the Huskies bring in any walk on kickers? Last year was brutal between the huskies and seahawks kickers.
It is currently Sun Dec 08, 2019 12:52 am
Return to [ THE NCAA FOOTBALL & PRO DRAFT FORUM ]