Did we really finish 10th in recruiting?

[CrimsonDisciple]

Singleton was a 4 star, MItchell is a 4 star, Hilinski 4 star, Toki 4 star. Would anyone really trade with either Arizona or Utah for that matter? It's frustrating that our class is artificially held down. Also, how can Utah have a better class when only 11 kids signed LOI's. Everyone else is delaying enrollment which means nothing. Really, how can you even compare the 2 classes? Not sure why I care at this point, but I do.

This post was edited on 2/6 8:58 AM by CrimsonDisciple

 

[chugspig]

That's the point! Why do we care about rankings other than being able to say look what we did? I understand higher ranked classes=more success generally, but really who cares what other teams think...there's a couple classes ahead of us I wouldn't trade for in the pac. we have specific needs and other teams have specific needs. What would you rather have, 8 wr like Cal or 5 Ol/dl like us? It may not be pretty but it's just how it goes.

 

[Brent H.]

ESPN gave Seattle a F for the 2012 NFL draft. That's why coaches coach and people start websites likes rivals BC they can't coach.

 

[CougEd]

What cracks me up is 10 days ago we were slobbering over the rankings and

now they are an afterthought, and they don't matter because those who evaluate aren't coaches.

 

[CougSinceBirth]

Originally posted by Brent H.:
ESPN gave Seattle a F for the 2012 NFL draft.

Great example. Seattle worried about building their team to fit their strategy and it didn't matter to them what any of the "pundits" thought.

Cougs are doing the same. The only way to get better is to focus on what you can control.

 

[YakiCoug]

Originally posted by CrimsonDisciple:
Singleton was a 4 star, MItchell is a 4 star, Hilinski 4 star, Toki 4 star. Would anyone really trade with either Arizona or Utah for that matter? It's frustrating that our class is artificially held down. Also, how can Utah have a better class when only 11 kids signed LOI's. Everyone else is delaying enrollment which means nothing. Really, how can you even compare the 2 classes? Not sure why I care at this point, but I do.

This post was edited on 2/6 8:58 AM by CrimsonDisciple

We lost a 4-star linebacker to San Diego State.The 3-star wide receiver still hasn't signed with anyone.
We lost a 3-star Juco LB to Oregon, which had no business taking him considering the Ducks played for the national championship a month ago.And that 4-star corner/wr? He very likely will end up at a JC.
What's interesting is that we added a 3-star d-linemen and the nation's sack leader, and brought in a 3-star corner from Georgia whose highlight tape suggests he's a baller. And which unit needs more help at WSU - offense or defense? You know the answer to that one.
But on paper, particularly the cyber variety, all the analysts see are lost stars. Their math is simple, even if predicting the success rate of 4-star prospects is not. As I said before, both lines at WSU have been bolstered. That's where we've been losing games for years. I still believe this staff deserves a D grade at the WR position in this class, but I believe we'll have at least a dozen on the roster this fall. If we make a recruiting haul in 2016, will anyone remember this faltering?

 

[Coug1990]

Originally posted by YakiCoug:

Originally posted by CrimsonDisciple:
Singleton was a 4 star, MItchell is a 4 star, Hilinski 4 star, Toki 4 star. Would anyone really trade with either Arizona or Utah for that matter? It's frustrating that our class is artificially held down. Also, how can Utah have a better class when only 11 kids signed LOI's. Everyone else is delaying enrollment which means nothing. Really, how can you even compare the 2 classes? Not sure why I care at this point, but I do.

This post was edited on 2/6 8:58 AM by CrimsonDisciple

We lost a 4-star linebacker to San Diego State.The 3-star wide receiver still hasn't signed with anyone.
We lost a 3-star Juco LB to Oregon, which had no business taking him considering the Ducks played for the national championship a month ago.And that 4-star corner/wr? He very likely will end up at a JC.
What's interesting is that we added a 3-star d-linemen and the nation's sack leader, and brought in a 3-star corner from Georgia whose highlight tape suggests he's a baller. And which unit needs more help at WSU - offense or defense? You know the answer to that one.
But on paper, particularly the cyber variety, all the analysts see are lost stars. Their math is simple, even if predicting the success rate of 4-star prospects is not. As I said before, both lines at WSU have been bolstered. That's where we've been losing games for years. I still believe this staff deserves a D grade at the WR position in this class, but I believe we'll have at least a dozen on the roster this fall. If we make a recruiting haul in 2016, will anyone remember this faltering?

You do understand how Rivals does their team rankings, don't you? It makes perfect sense the way they do their team rankings why WSU fell in their rankings. Regarding WR, Priester looks like a big time recruit. They say that Sweet is better than Cracraft and before he was injured, Cracraft was on his way to a 100 catch season with over 10 TD's. Dimry fills a need in the redzone. Personally, I am not buying your D grade.

 

[YakiCoug]

No offense, 1990, but how many fingers do you need to represent the number of offers Sweet and Dimry had on the table? As I said, no one will notice the shortcoming in WR recruiting this year if Leach et al make a haul next year. I'll agree that adding Priester to the mix makes things look better, but he's not going to play this season.

 

[Coug1990]

Originally posted by YakiCoug:
No offense, 1990, but how many fingers do you need to represent the number of offers Sweet and Dimry had on the table? As I said, no one will notice the shortcoming in WR recruiting this year if Leach et al make a haul next year. I'll agree that adding Priester to the mix makes things look better, but he's not going to play this season.

Mike Leach has been great at evaluating receivers going back to his days at Texas Tech. He knows what a receiver looks like. He doesn't need to look at Stars and BCS offers behind players names.

Cracraft, WSU was his only BCS offer and had three total. True, Priester will not play, but did you think that Burnett was going to play this fall? Would Green have contributed more next season than Dimry? I doubt it.

If Sweet turns out to be another Cracraft, then this will be a better recruiting haul at receiver than most schools. If Priester turns out to be as good as we think he will be (and he is reportedly tearing up midnight maneuvers), then this will be a better recruiting haul at receiver than most schools. If Dimry turns out to be a good redzone target this season, then this will turn out better than having Green. They can replace a Green in next years class. But, Dimry can contribute this upcoming season.

I do not think this class was as bad as you think it is


This post was edited on 2/6 2:29 PM by Coug1990

 

[random soul]

This remains the best class of the Leach era

and therefore our best class in at least 12 years, if not longer. And I'll keep harping on this point because it bears repeating:

A good class under Leach means more than perhaps even a good class under Price because retention is better.

The bulk of the recruits are better students than Price's kids were, for one thing, and they are better at staying out of trouble. Hiring Leach, and the collection of assistants he's thus far compiled, provide for a better talent pool to draw from than the Wulff and Doba years, and a defined offensive system with proven capability, However, what he really does well that WSU hasn't possibly ever had in the modern era of football is PROGRAM STABILITY. Having a collection of 15+ redshirt seniors every year can do great things for consistent performance.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

You are right, random. A pile of 5th year players is a key to success. We are still a couple of years away from that point, but we are now on track to get there.

 

[YakiCoug]

Originally posted by cr8zyncalif:

You are right, random. A pile of 5th year players is a key to success. We are still a couple of years away from that point, but we are now on track to get there.

If I've handed the aPaulogists/Wulffies anything in the past, it is this: until the 2014 class, Leach has experience quite a bit of attrition, with his inaugural class in 2012 being the worst (12 players washing out). Six more from the 2013 class washed.
The 2014 class never saw Jalen Canty enroll and saw Squally Canada and Kevin Griffin quit.
It's a fact that about half of any class in any program never makes it to the finish line, but it's true the numbers are improving under Leach. We'll have 20 or so offensive linemen and at least a dozen d-linemen on the roster this fall. I don't believe WSU has ever had numbers like this. Even with the WR recruiting shortcomings this year, we return enough bodies that it likely won't matter so long as we make a haul in 2016, as I've said before.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

One more group of comments on the topic before this thread runs its course. Yes, according to the stars system we finished 10th in recruiting. But if you are so inclined to think in the terms of the stars ratings, you need to recognize that there have been years when 10th was way behind 7th, 8th and 9th, and there have been years when it was a pretty small & incremental difference. A 4 star player bumps the rating by a couple hundred points. We were literally one or two players from being in the middle of the group. As they say in the political polls, the result is too close to call because the margin of error in the rating process is greater than the poll's point difference.

It is also critical to recognize that the stars system rates individuals, not position groups. That has some value when trying to assess overall athleticism on a roster, but it has no value when trying to assess the needs of a team. Cal, which finished ahead of us according to stars points, is a great example. Look at what their problems were last year and tell me if you think they really needed 8 receivers and only 3 OL? But that was how it shook out for them on NLI day. Sure, a couple of those receivers will probably end up as DB's (which was a definite need), but how the heck do you create O Linemen (an even greater need) if you never managed to sign them in the first place? We've been over that ground with CPW's regime. I am much happier with our class than Cal's class, and I think that Cal would be much happier with our class, as well.

The old Sweeney comment that went something along the lines of: "We didn't get every kid we wanted, but we wanted every kid we got" is an excellent fit for this class. Sure, I can nitpick. I would have really liked one more LB, particularly a JC LB that looked ready to plug in. We got one, but I would have liked two. And at least one of our DL's (Fehoko) looks more like a buck to me in a 3-4 than a DT. He is really a classic DE for a 4-3. Does that mean we will be using situational 4-3 fronts? Or does it mean that we'll try to keep Fehoko at his current weight and emphasize speed so he can play Buck? The Grinch will certainly be watching how this kid grows and if he is good enough to see the field, we'll find a place to put him. I also scratched my old bald head when I first heard about Dimry's signing, but upon further reflection, I was happy to get a tall kid for use in the red zone. I enjoyed watching Mike Bush in that role, and perhaps this kid will lend a similar capability to our goal line offense.

I guess my conclusion is that the stars system seems to think that this is the 10th best group of athletes this year, but that the group is very close to many of those finishing higher. To that I would add that the actual group that we signed addressed our long term needs very well (linemen heavy, good looking QB, several CB's) and probably addressed our immediate needs fairly well. Finally, this class showed me what Leach's staff can do on the recruiting trail. Subtract the chaos caused by Simmons' late move and we would have been shouting from the rooftops. I see more wins this fall, and an even better recruiting class next winter. End of rant.

 

[Coug1990]

Good post. Agree with most of this. By the way, in the podcast that Britton did with Cougcenter, he said that the weight listed for Fehoko was from a year ago and that he is about 270 now.

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

Re: This remains the best class of the Leach era

"A good class under Leach means more than perhaps even a good class under Price because retention is better."

Good point. I like the types of guys that he gets just as I thought the guys the Bennetts got for basketball were of higher quality in terms of academics, character, etc.

 

[Fab5Coug]

Re: This remains the best class of the Leach era

Originally posted by random soul:
and therefore our best class in at least 12 years, if not longer. And I'll keep harping on this point because it bears repeating:

A good class under Leach means more than perhaps even a good class under Price because retention is better.

The bulk of the recruits are better students than Price's kids were, for one thing, and they are better at staying out of trouble. Hiring Leach, and the collection of assistants he's thus far compiled, provide for a better talent pool to draw from than the Wulff and Doba years, and a defined offensive system with proven capability, However, what he really does well that WSU hasn't possibly ever had in the modern era of football is PROGRAM STABILITY. Having a collection of 15+ redshirt seniors every year can do great things for consistent performance.

If the plan is to win only when we have 15+ red shirt seniors, then we all just ought to stop watching now cause that's almost never going to happen.

Check every Pac12 depth chart and tell me how many programs have 15+ red shirt seniors contributing for them. If you can find even 1, I'd be surprised.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Out of curiosity...


Fab, just for grins, I checked the original PAC 10 teams (ran out of time; didn't get CO or Utah; nominally I still work for a living).

I checked redshirt junior numbers, since that is a fair place to start for expected numbers of redshirt seniors for the coming season. Some of the numbers will be depleted a bit; kids get concussions and have to stop playing, kids go to the NFL early, and a few simply quit. But more or less, the number of redshirt juniors should give us some clue as to the redshirt senior roster make up for the coming year.

I don't claim that this means anything, and you could bring all kinds of interpretations to the numbers. But here is some raw data.

By my admittedly quick count:

OSU 10
UCLA 11
UW 11
ASU 12
UA 13
USC 15
UO 15
WSU 16
Cal 18
Stanford 22

Average for the 10 teams: 14.3

 

[Fab5Coug]

Re: Out of curiosity...

Is that depth chart or just roster?

 

[chugspig]

Has gotta be roster.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Just the roster. Of course there are some widow & orphan players on every roster. But the point of having 4 and 5 year players is that some will develop and not help a lot until their last 2 years or so. Again, I'm not trying to make a point with the numbers...I just took your observations regarding redshirt seniors to heart and was curious how the coming season might look for the old PAC 10 teams. I found it interesting, for example, that the numbers of RS juniors ranged all the way from 10 to 22.

 

[kayak15]

Those who are bitching about our recently recruited class's ranking need to stop, take a deep breath and look a bit more closely. We hauled in a number of DBs, our main problem area. The addition of wide bodies was nice, very nice indeed. Some point at the loss of some prospects in the "skill" positions. While that is so, we need to remember the addition of Priester, LaRue and Singleton. All three were regarded as four stars at one time. Factor them into the "skill" mix and things do not look so dire. It is just me but if we had kept all the "skill" guys and the linemen were the ones flipping then I would shift into panic mode and join the pity party. Yes, we need some shoring up at the LB slots and lost some WRs. I am sure that we will get those next year. We have enough WRs on the squad for the immediate future. The need for more LBs is there but can also be dealt with.

On another note I find it somewhat amusing that so many posts dismiss the rating by scouting services. "Stars are unimportant because....." For a bunch of people who regard these ratings as meaningless they sure follow them closely.

I like the look of this class a lot. Solid foundation on the lines and added DBs. Did we get everything we want? No, but that's life. Again, I like this class and as Random pointed out the retention should be good.

 

[Coug1990]

Originally posted by kayak15:

Those who are bitching about our recently recruited class's ranking need to stop, take a deep breath and look a bit more closely. We hauled in a number of DBs, our main problem area. The addition of wide bodies was nice, very nice indeed. Some point at the loss of some prospects in the "skill" positions. While that is so, we need to remember the addition of Priester, LaRue and Singleton. All three were regarded as four stars at one time. Factor them into the "skill" mix and things do not look so dire. It is just me but if we had kept all the "skill" guys and the linemen were the ones flipping then I would shift into panic mode and join the pity party. Yes, we need some shoring up at the LB slots and lost some WRs. I am sure that we will get those next year. We have enough WRs on the squad for the immediate future. The need for more LBs is there but can also be dealt with.

On another note I find it somewhat amusing that so many posts dismiss the rating by scouting services. "Stars are unimportant because....." For a bunch of people who regard these ratings as meaningless they sure follow them closely.

I like the look of this class a lot. Solid foundation on the lines and added DBs. Did we get everything we want? No, but that's life. Again, I like this class and as Random pointed out the retention should be good.

I agree. WS filled the most important positions except for linebacker. Still, we don't know how all of these players will shake out.

Regarding team rankings, both Rivals and Scout do a decent job. But, they are not perfect, nor are many coaches. I think the top 10-20 are fairly accurate give or take a few spots. Same with the bottom 10-20. I think that after that, the rankings gets less accurate. But, this is all interesting to us. News about the Cougars is interesting to us.

 

[YakiCoug]

I believe Scout ranks WSU 43rd overall, but that's because they have Powell, Luani, and Mitchell as 4-stars. Rivals has them as 3, 3, and 2 stars, respectively. Some rate Luani the top JC db in the country. Scout also lists Logan Tago as a 3 star. Rivals has him as a 2.

 

[Coug1990]

If WSU is the 43rd best team in the NCAA in 4-5 years, that means WSU has made a bowl. Then, all the whining can hopefully stop. There is a thread on BX whining about Leach. One guy pretty much summed up that thread well (paraphrasing here), "You're complaining because Leach doesn't listen to you on how the passing game, running offense, and goal line offense should run."

 

[Fab5Coug]

If its just from the roster, then it includes walk ons, roster fodder & JCs.

The number of guys who actually spend 5 years on scholarship and actually contribute is much lower than that.

I went through & did this a few years ago and the average was somewhere around 5 or 6.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

True enough, Fab. 5 or 6 makes sense with those restrictions. But the idea of having 15 RS seniors on a roster is not far fetched, and that is what I was talking about. Sorry I failed to communicate effectively. I did not attend the Murrow School.