Taking a break from the Pac-12, Georgia signed 7!! SEVEN!! Five star players. The whole Pac-12 got 4 (all USC).

JSeahawks wrote:Taking a break from the Pac-12, Georgia signed 7!! SEVEN!! Five star players. The whole Pac-12 got 4 (all USC).

Crazy really.

Did the Stanford staff take a year off recruiting?

hawkman wrote:Did the Stanford staff take a year off recruiting?

Yea, thats a little surprising. I'm also surprised that Kevin Sumlin didnt close a little bit better at Arizona, although he was on really limited time even compared to most of the other new coaches. I figured he would have been able to pull a stud or two. Didnt land a single 4 star.

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.....

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.

From what I seen Clemson had a good class as well.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

Hypothetical. But these are the guys that almost certainly would have been Ducks if Taggart had stayed. to get the class to 32. 8 of these guys were already commited to the Ducks, then decommited when he left so this is not that much of a hypothetical. There is not a sliver of doubt in my mind that all of these guys would have been Ducks.

Talanoa Hufanga (almost a 5 star)
Devon Williams (almost a 5 star)
Warren Thompson (mid 4 star)
Malcolm Lamar (mid 4 star)
Treshaun Harrison (mid 4 star)
Isaiah Bolden (mid 4 star)
Braden Lenzy (low 4 star)
Michael Ezeike (mid 4 star)
Miles Battle (low 4 star)
Jonathon King (high 3 star)

Add those guys onto the Ducks commitment list on the Class Calculator feauture on 247 and that gets the class to 280.57 points on the 247 composite rankings which would have put the class at 9th in the rankings. Now, remove the long snapper because Willie wasnt going to sign one, remove the two backup options hte ducks signed today (Tucker and Hailassee), repmove Quintariano who's not going to get it and replace those 4 with 4 4 stars in their place (which again, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind Taggart would have done, the man is a recruiting savant), and the class would have leapfrogged Miami, Alabama, Clemson and Penn State right into 5th place right behind USC. He also had no problem getting dirty in recruiting so my guess is he would have pushed out some of our other lower ranked recruits for higher ranked guys, but i'm not going to attempt to add that into the equation.

5th ranked class, easily. Granted they would be doing it with almost twice as many recruits as teams like Clemson and uSC.

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.

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

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.

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: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

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.

JSeahawks wrote:Interesting that after signing their class yesterday USC is 5 scholarships over the limit, they’ve got some processing to do!

There's long been rumors about transfers and medical retirements. Late yesterday there were rumors of a 4 star Guard from Mater Dei (same school SC got 3 recruits from) wanting to flip. Ultimately he signed with UCLA. Missing on Sewell you'd think they'd have jumped at the chance to pick up a big boy, but didn't. Maybe I'm reading too much into the tea leaves, but it likely means SC had a number they couldn't exceed.

Nice Christmas in February, USC class of 2018.

SPRING ENROLLMENT
NAME POS HGT WGT HOMETOWN (HIGH SCHOOL/JC)

Caleb Tremblay DL 6-5 275 Napa, CA (Vintage/American River CC)
Justin Dedich OL 6-2 290 Temecula, CA (Chaparral)
Talanoa Hufanga DB 6-1 215 Corvallis, OR (Crescent Valley)
Kana’i Mauga LB 6-2 220 Waianae, HI (Waianae)
Raymond Scott LB 6-2 220 Harbor City, CA (Narbonne)
Chase Williams DB 6-2 190 Corona, CA (Roosevelt)

FALL ENROLLMENT
NAME POS HGT WGT HOMETOWN (HIGH SCHOOL)

Liam Douglass OL 6-5 285 Topanga, CA (Harvard Westlake)
Palaie Gaoteote IV LB 6-2 235 Las Vegas, NV (Bishop Gorman)
Abdul-Malik McClain LB 6-4 230 San Juan Capistrano, CA (JSerra Catholic)
Markese Stepp RB 6-0 230 Indianapolis, IN (Cathedral)
JT Daniels QB 6-3 205 Irvine, CA (Mater Dei)
Olaijah Griffin DB 6-0 180 Long Beach, CA (Mission Viejo)
Amon-Ra St. Brown WR 6-1 190 Anaheim Hills, CA (Mater Dei)
Isaac Taylor-Stuart DB 6-2 190 San Diego, CA (Helix)
Trevor Trout DL 6-4 300 Ferguson, MO (Chaminade College Prep)
Solomon Tuliaupupu LB 6-3 230 Santa Ana, CA (Mater Dei)
Devon Williams WR 6-4 200 Lancaster, CA (Antelope Valley)
Eli’jah Winston LB 6-3 230 Portland, OR (Central Catholic)

Not listed John Jackson III, Blueshirt class of 2019

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.

really just supports the point that assuming class rankings is folly until the ink is dry.

2 star, walk on 5 star, it all depends on system and what they ask the player to do, why many times a very good staff can make mediocre rated recruits look very good as a team. Now a great coach and staff with players that have elite qualities like Alabama can look like a Juggernaut because they bring in players that can play in the system they create.

Others have elite talent misused and you never hear from that player again.

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:

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.

Total East coast Bias for Espin. They have no coverage out West. Rivals & 24/7 are the way to go.

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.

And, save me the "low 4-star" - "high 3-star," that's entirely subjective.

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+

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+

247Sports claims that their formula doesn't favor large classes but all one had to do was look at USC's class when they had 3 5-stars, 10 4-stars and 1 3-star (a ratio of 13 to 1) and were ranked three spots below the Huskies who had an even mix of 4-stars and 3-stars but had more recruits.

It's beyond obvious.

I really don’t even understand what you guys are arguing. I used the 247 class calculator, which is a feature where you can add whatever recruits you want to the class and it uses the exact formula they use to tank classes to figure out your class ranking. If you’re not going to do it mathematically how would you rank classes before they ever out on a uniform if it’s not mathematical?

Go play with the class calculator 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. This is my last post on the subject. Because there’s no point in arguing it unless you want to change the whole way that the sites rank classes. It’s just a fact, it’s not even an opinion.

I mean, if you want to talk about changing the formula, that’s beyond my brain power.

It was a question, not an argument

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.

I was replying more to Domehawk then Si, Domehawk said "i can argue both" which i assumed meant he wanted to debate it? I just got Si's reply quoted in there too.

And to Domehawk, i fully agree that i'd rather have a class of 15 with 3 five stars and a bunch of 4 stars then a class of 32 with a mix of 4 and 3 stars. I'm right there with you. But the original question was if Taggart could get a top 5 class without any 5 stars, and the answer is that he could. It doesnt mean it would be the best class on the field, but it would be ranked as one of the best 5.

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.

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:

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.

Oh, "it mathematical?" [sic]

And, "it could have happened." This is what is known as a type 3 conditional sentence and yes, you just recited a hypothetical.

Honestly J, I didn't mean to get you this worked up.

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.

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. He also played the race card a ton.

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.

Lol, well good, but I have to admit I like the games more even though they cause me a lot of stress. And, apparently, I am very unlikable at first because you aren't the only one.

I am really looking forward to this season but my expectations may be a little out of whack. I really think this team may be the best Husky team of the last three years.

Also, one development that I really liked was how poorly Stanford did this this recruiting cycle. I'm tired of losing Washington blue chips to those guys. It's that Stanford paper, it's like someone handing you 200K.

Drove down to Eureka today, man, not too many miles out of Portland the sun came out and the Oregon landscape was bright green! It's prettier than the drive thru southern Washington, but I just don't remember it being that green, it was like neon green. Cut off at Grants Pass and thru the Smith River/Jedediah Redwoods. By the time I hit the border it was like 70 degrees! Driving past the ocean beaches that warm sun felt so good. Western Washington has the best summers anywhere but it comes so much earlier down there.

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.

I forgot to ask. Did the Huskies bring in any walk on kickers? Last year was brutal between the huskies and seahawks kickers.

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.

Yes. I can’t remember his name but if you look back on this thread a page or 2 and it was mentioned.

Do they usually try out multiple kickers before giving a walk on spot to someone? Would like more than one just incase