ADVERTISEMENT

Good Day to be a Coug, 2018

Coug95man2

Coug95man2

Hall Of Fame
Dec 7, 2011
6,681
783
113
So no one has posted but I like this kid. Victor Terry III. By some services, he's a 4star OLB. By rivals, he's a 3 star. This is way early and he's expressed his interest in the LA schools. Have a feeling he's just holding his spot in line hoping for a different spot. But who knows… Just thought I'd put it out there, tho. Good to see we're bringing them in.

https://n.rivals.com/content/prospects/15297
 
It is quite possible that you are correct. Remember what happened last year with the first player to commit. However ,isn't there a early signing period this year?
 
i believe that an early signing period would benefit WSU. My perspective is that the cougs work hard in identifying players and make offers.The players commit and then other schools swoop in and offer. This seems to happen a lot in December, so if they sign early WSU would not lose as many players as they usually do.Perhaps the coug coaches work harder in the early stages as they do not have the advantages the California schools do in recruiting local players.?
 
Out of curiosity, has Coach Leach voice his stance on the early signing? Does anyone know if he's for or against it?
 
ElComanche said:
i believe that an early signing period would benefit WSU. My perspective is that the cougs work hard in identifying players and make offers.The players commit and then other schools swoop in and offer. This seems to happen a lot in December, so if they sign early WSU would not lose as many players as they usually do.Perhaps the coug coaches work harder in the early stages as they do not have the advantages the California schools do in recruiting local players.?
Click to expand...
I don't see those players that are using us as placeholders signing in Dec. if they are still waiting on USC or UCLA to offer them. All the early Dec. signing period does is get those guys that have always wanted to be Cougs signed a couple months earlier than they would have otherwise signed.
 
If USC or UCLA have not offered, then their chances of signing with the cougs will increase in my opinion. They could be caught waiting for an offer which may never come.I t works both ways.Now a recruit can commit while waiting for a "better offer" . With an early signing in DEc ,they may go with the sure thing.
 
ElComanche said:
If USC or UCLA have not offered, then their chances of signing with the cougs will increase in my opinion. They could be caught waiting for an offer which may never come.I t works both ways.Now a recruit can commit while waiting for a "better offer" . With an early signing in DEc ,they may go with the sure thing.
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't they just wait until the Feb. signing day rolls around to see if something better comes along? Unless Leach starts to threaten to pull offers (which I highly doubt will happen), they've got a spot waiting for them if their premier program offer doesn't materialize.
 
I think that as more players sign they may realize the coug offer could go away and they may be left holding the bag It happened to players who ,all of a sudden ,did have have a D 1 offer,this past season
 
Well he will have to adjust. He has changed his recruiting philosophy so he can bring in the potentiate recruits at the end. Now he will have to revise his schedule and change things up
 
ElComanche said:
i believe that an early signing period would benefit WSU. My perspective is that the cougs work hard in identifying players and make offers.The players commit and then other schools swoop in and offer. This seems to happen a lot in December, so if they sign early WSU would not lose as many players as they usually do.Perhaps the coug coaches work harder in the early stages as they do not have the advantages the California schools do in recruiting local players.?
Click to expand...
I agree, but , if I was coach players that were perceived as using us as a placeholder I would push to sign in the early signing period, if they were reluctant their spot would be up for grabs
 
He is against it, basically because he thinks kids should be kids. There shouldn't be that kind of pressure on them, etc. etc. Here is an interview from November, he's asked about it around the 11:15 mark.
BTW, decent interview, in general.
 
Coug95man2 said:
He is against it, basically because he thinks kids should be kids. There shouldn't be that kind of pressure on them, etc. etc. Here is an interview from November, he's asked about it around the 11:15 mark.
BTW, decent interview, in general.
View embedded media
Click to expand...

If WSU had officially filled up a number of slots in December, it wouldn't have had room for guys like Calvin. Flexibility is always key in recruiting, especially when some of those early recruits aren't going to qualify.
 
SaveFerris said:
I believe he has said he is against it.
Click to expand...
He has said he is against it and for the life of me I don't understand why. It will change a "the definition of a "verbal" commitment. By December 5th if they don't sign their bluff is called and they are waiting for another offer. It will benefit teams that do a great job in evaluating talent.
 
YakiCoug said:
If WSU had officially filled up a number of slots in December, it wouldn't have had room for guys like Calvin. Flexibility is always key in recruiting, especially when some of those early recruits aren't going to qualify.
Click to expand...

This leads me to point out the additional complexity involved with the early signing period. I wouldn't think all schools would (or, at least, I don't think they should) open up their entire offer list, or maybe even their commitment list at the time the early signing period rolls around, to early commitments. You'd want to be targeted and, at the risk of being a little cold, only let those commit early who you are sure about and who definitely wouldn't be potential targets for grayshirting or pulling their offer for some reason (grades, etc.). This, then, would create some awkwardness ... if you don't want a kid to sign early, that isn't great for the recruiting "relationship."

I think this would affect WSU less than other schools, at least right now, since Leach and his staff seem to not care as much about recruiting rankings or trying to recruit over their existing commits the way a lot of other schools do (Mora comes to mind) ... Leach might be OK letting his entire commit list sign early if they wanted. It still creates some additional complexity, though. I think between the additional complexity and my expectation that many fewer kids (especially those with options) would sign early than anticipated, I don't think the early signing period will make as big of a difference as some think. I think it would benefit WSU but not to the significant extent some believe.
 
425cougfan said:
This leads me to point out the additional complexity involved with the early signing period. I wouldn't think all schools would (or, at least, I don't think they should) open up their entire offer list, or maybe even their commitment list at the time the early signing period rolls around, to early commitments. You'd want to be targeted and, at the risk of being a little cold, only let those commit early who you are sure about and who definitely wouldn't be potential targets for grayshirting or pulling their offer for some reason (grades, etc.). This, then, would create some awkwardness ... if you don't want a kid to sign early, that isn't great for the recruiting "relationship."

I think this would affect WSU less than other schools, at least right now, since Leach and his staff seem to not care as much about recruiting rankings or trying to recruit over their existing commits the way a lot of other schools do (Mora comes to mind) ... Leach might be OK letting his entire commit list sign early if they wanted. It still creates some additional complexity, though. I think between the additional complexity and my expectation that many fewer kids (especially those with options) would sign early than anticipated, I don't think the early signing period will make as big of a difference as some think. I think it would benefit WSU but not to the significant extent some believe.
Click to expand...
I think you've touched on an aspect that is something to consider. The schools may/may not benefit. Each school will handle that as they feel will benefit them. But the additional "mind games" placed on these 17/18/19 year olds will increase. This might be the concept CML is referencing.
 
425cougfan said:
This leads me to point out the additional complexity involved with the early signing period. I wouldn't think all schools would (or, at least, I don't think they should) open up their entire offer list, or maybe even their commitment list at the time the early signing period rolls around, to early commitments. You'd want to be targeted and, at the risk of being a little cold, only let those commit early who you are sure about and who definitely wouldn't be potential targets for grayshirting or pulling their offer for some reason (grades, etc.). This, then, would create some awkwardness ... if you don't want a kid to sign early, that isn't great for the recruiting "relationship."

I think this would affect WSU less than other schools, at least right now, since Leach and his staff seem to not care as much about recruiting rankings or trying to recruit over their existing commits the way a lot of other schools do (Mora comes to mind) ... Leach might be OK letting his entire commit list sign early if they wanted. It still creates some additional complexity, though. I think between the additional complexity and my expectation that many fewer kids (especially those with options) would sign early than anticipated, I don't think the early signing period will make as big of a difference as some think. I think it would benefit WSU but not to the significant extent some believe.
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity...why not? Who would you rather have in 1993 for example, Jake Plummer or Chad Degrnier. Mike Price ID'ed Plummer early. He was all set to be a Coug. Bruce Snyder comes after losing his QB and convinces Plummer to take a late visit to ASU. If you have 25 players committed on December 5th I would bet 16 sign and 9 decide to hold off and wait for something else. What it does is take out the Feb uncertainty and last minute maneuvering. It takes out some person holding a seat at the table only eating appetizers and hoping his main course is at another table. The people who want to be Cougs will be Cougs. Then your recruiting 7-9 spots for the Feb 1 signing. It is a no brainer.
 
425cougfan said:
This leads me to point out the additional complexity involved with the early signing period. I wouldn't think all schools would (or, at least, I don't think they should) open up their entire offer list, or maybe even their commitment list at the time the early signing period rolls around, to early commitments. You'd want to be targeted and, at the risk of being a little cold, only let those commit early who you are sure about and who definitely wouldn't be potential targets for grayshirting or pulling their offer for some reason (grades, etc.). This, then, would create some awkwardness ... if you don't want a kid to sign early, that isn't great for the recruiting "relationship."

I think this would affect WSU less than other schools, at least right now, since Leach and his staff seem to not care as much about recruiting rankings or trying to recruit over their existing commits the way a lot of other schools do (Mora comes to mind) ... Leach might be OK letting his entire commit list sign early if they wanted. It still creates some additional complexity, though. I think between the additional complexity and my expectation that many fewer kids (especially those with options) would sign early than anticipated, I don't think the early signing period will make as big of a difference as some think. I think it would benefit WSU but not to the significant extent some believe.
Click to expand...
Are you saying WSU and other schools are offering players they really don't want. If you offered 100, and the first 25 commit you don't think the school wants those 25 commits?
 
CougEd said:
Just out of curiosity...why not? Who would you rather have in 1993 for example, Jake Plummer or Chad Degrnier. Mike Price ID'ed Plummer early. He was all set to be a Coug. Bruce Snyder comes after losing his QB and convinces Plummer to take a late visit to ASU. If you have 25 players committed on December 5th I would bet 16 sign and 9 decide to hold off and wait for something else. What it does is take out the Feb uncertainty and last minute maneuvering. It takes out some person holding a seat at the table only eating appetizers and hoping his main course is at another table. The people who want to be Cougs will be Cougs. Then your recruiting 7-9 spots for the Feb 1 signing. It is a no brainer.
Click to expand...

Basically, I think those most apt to sign early would be the guys you'd later need / want to ask to grayshirt or that some coaches (likely not Leach) would later recruit over. Not true in all cases and I'm painting with a broad brush, and as I explained, I don't think that's a big issue with Leach given his philosophy and approach. As you've done with Plummer, I think there are examples where an early signing period would help WSU, and overall, I think WSU would benefit from an early signing period more than it would be burdened by it. I see no reason to oppose it from a WSU perspective. I just don't think it will be some kind of panacea that prevents kids from getting flipped ... I often see people talking about early signing periods in the context of, e.g., Victory Terry (the kid in this thread), and guys like that usually aren't going to sign early anyway.

Bullet point version:

- Creates complexity
- May limit flexibility and/or create potential for awkwardness (probably more for other schools than WSU under Leach, admittedly, and that might even help WSU with some recruits)
- Probably helps WSU with some kids once in a while, but basically, I think those most apt to do it are the kids who would stick as Cougs anyway, and those who most think WSU will keep with an early signing period aren't going to sign early anyway
- Overall net benefit to WSU, but not as big as some seem to think
 
CougEd said:
Are you saying WSU and other schools are offering players they really don't want. If you offered 100, and the first 25 commit you don't think the school wants those 25 commits?
Click to expand...

I don't think schools, as a regular practice, offer kids they don't want at the time the offer is extended. That said, we've heard about other schools (seemingly not WSU under Leach, as I said), "recruiting over" their existing commits. They'll have a 3-star kid commit in January, for example, and then just stop contacting him (as Sark used to love to do) or contact him to suggest that he "decommit" if they think they can get someone better, he gets hurt, or they don't like his development as a senior. Bear in mind the difference between staying in the game with recruits in case your current players decommit, on the one hand, and on the other, actively recruiting other higher-rated prospects not as backup plans if your current guy decommits but, instead, with the intent of pulling the lower-rated commit's offer and signing the higher-rated kid. We've heard about Mora doing this and I believe a lot of the "big" schools do this.
 
425cougfan said:
Basically, I think those most apt to sign early would be the guys you'd later need / want to ask to grayshirt or that some coaches (likely not Leach) would later recruit over. Not true in all cases and I'm painting with a broad brush, and as I explained, I don't think that's a big issue with Leach given his philosophy and approach. As you've done with Plummer, I think there are examples where an early signing period would help WSU, and overall, I think WSU would benefit from an early signing period more than it would be burdened by it. I see no reason to oppose it from a WSU perspective. I just don't think it will be some kind of panacea that prevents kids from getting flipped ... I often see people talking about early signing periods in the context of, e.g., Victory Terry (the kid in this thread), and guys like that usually aren't going to sign early anyway.

Bullet point version:

- Creates complexity
- May limit flexibility and/or create potential for awkwardness (probably more for other schools than WSU under Leach, admittedly, and that might even help WSU with some recruits)
- Probably helps WSU with some kids once in a while, but basically, I think those most apt to do it are the kids who would stick as Cougs anyway, and those who most think WSU will keep with an early signing period aren't going to sign early anyway
- Overall net benefit to WSU, but not as big as some seem to think
Click to expand...
If you are really good at evaluation it is a benefit. If you suck it is a detriment.

To be honest I have yet to hear why knowing what a recruit is doing in December is a bad thing. If a school is on the fence over a kid don't offer where they can commit. Just as UW did with Ali Gaye. Two or three kids fell through and they ended up with 6 6 260 pound DE Ali Gaye. They held off offering him until their other commits fell through.

If Ali had an offer from WSU...which he did...he would have had a choice to accept their offer and sign or play the waiting game. Like I said it is a good thing to know that out of 25 kids, 18 are already in the barn.
 
CougEd said:
If you are really good at evaluation it is a benefit. If you suck it is a detriment.

To be honest I have yet to hear why knowing what a recruit is doing in December is a bad thing. If a school is on the fence over a kid don't offer where they can commit. Just as UW did with Ali Gaye. Two or three kids fell through and they ended up with 6 6 260 pound DE Ali Gaye. They held off offering him until their other commits fell through.

If Ali had an offer from WSU...which he did...he would have had a choice to accept their offer and sign or play the waiting game. Like I said it is a good thing to know that out of 25 kids, 18 are already in the barn.
Click to expand...

These are fair points ... I don't think we disagree. I'm for an early signing period and I don't really see much "harm" to anyone if a kid really does know they want to lock things down (or, more accurately, if they view the benefit of locking things down, grabbing a clear Pac-12 opportunity, and being able to not worry about recruiting during their senior year as worth losing the potential opportunity to, e.g., sign as a Plan C option for a late-offering "big" school down the line).

I primarily just wanted to point out that there are some costs to this, even if they aren't particularly harmful (all the stuff I already mentioned), and that I doubt that an early signing period would be as big of a benefit to WSU as some think. With realistic expectations, though, I don't see a lot of downside for WSU and I think it would benefit from it more than most schools.
 
I like the concept, but I really doubt many kids take advantage of the early signing period and that we end up with the usual musical chairs routine at the end of January--just like it always has been.
 
fingerdisco said:
I like the concept, but I really doubt many kids take advantage of the early signing period and that we end up with the usual musical chairs routine at the end of January--just like it always has been.
Click to expand...

Just think: if Wulff had had an early signing period, he would have snagged Asante Cleveland and possibly have turned 4-8 into 5-7!
 
I don't follow every word from CML's mouth, but I thought he had discussed the merits of early signing more than once.

Like most changes toward earlier commitments, it favors those who work harder and get after it early. It also puts yet one more penalty in the face of a school who is switching coaches in a particular year, since presumably a kid could opt out if his coach for whom he committed gets fired, while limiting the available athlete pool for schools who did not have a new coach announced until after the early signing deadline.

Personally, I think WSU would benefit. As would the OSU's, Utah's, CO's, UA's and Cal's of the world, none of whom have had a lot of success poaching people late. An early signing period would probably just about be a wash for the rest of the PAC.
 
cr8zyncalif said:
I don't follow every word from CML's mouth, but I thought he had discussed the merits of early signing more than once.

Like most changes toward earlier commitments, it favors those who work harder and get after it early. It also puts yet one more penalty in the face of a school who is switching coaches in a particular year, since presumably a kid could opt out if his coach for whom he committed gets fired, while limiting the available athlete pool for schools who did not have a new coach announced until after the early signing deadline.

Personally, I think WSU would benefit. As would the OSU's, Utah's, CO's, UA's and Cal's of the world, none of whom have had a lot of success poaching people late. An early signing period would probably just about be a wash for the rest of the PAC.
Click to expand...
I think you are presuming the coaches are going to offer players in the same philosophy. As we all know, it isn't that easy. So those "hard workers", to me, is code words for under-rated 2 star or maybe a 3star kid with only offers from FCS teams. So to me, if I was a coach, I wouldn't offer those kids until late, late, late. I want the high 3, 4, and 5 start players to make their decisions first. THEN I'll clear the slate for the others. Now, it isn't the same.

So I see the whole concept changing from the coaches perspective. So assumptions of how coaches handle the process being the same… we shouldn't make the assumption, IMHO.
 
fingerdisco said:
Maybe Shelton Danzy too
Click to expand...
Ah he would never recruit a position-less player who would quit after three months. Especially being hailed the next great Coug by Doba at a recruiting dinner. At least he could have made it to the end of the year.
 
CougEd said:
Ah he would never recruit a position-less player who would quit after three months. Especially being hailed the next great Coug by Doba at a recruiting dinner. At least he could have made it to the end of the year.
Click to expand...
he just recruited players that nobody else wanted
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orecoug
longtimecoug said:
he just recruited players that nobody else wanted
Click to expand...
Well that may very well be true. Looks like he took the Bill Doba playbook on recruiting cause Cole Morgan wasn't exactly on everyone's list, nor was Stephan Bluhm, Danzy, or Aaron Joseph... or a bunch of other players.
 
CougEd said:
Ah he would never recruit a position-less player who would quit after three months. Especially being hailed the next great Coug by Doba at a recruiting dinner. At least he could have made it to the end of the year.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure Danzy stuck it out for his whole redshirt year and then some.
 
dgibbons said:
Pretty sure Danzy stuck it out for his whole redshirt year and then some.
Click to expand...

Even though he never made an impact on the field, Danzy is and always be one of my favorite Cougs. That man had more love for WSU than any recruit that I've ever seen and that means something to me. I hope he found some sort of success in his life.
 
dgibbons said:
Pretty sure Danzy stuck it out for his whole redshirt year and then some.
Click to expand...
Flatlandcoug said:
Even though he never made an impact on the field, Danzy is and always be one of my favorite Cougs. That man had more love for WSU than any recruit that I've ever seen and that means something to me. I hope he found some sort of success in his life.
Click to expand...
You must be have a soft heart for BS.
 
dgibbons said:
Pretty sure Danzy stuck it out for his whole redshirt year and then some.
Click to expand...
Well...if the fall of 2005 was the beginning of his redshirt freshman year, then he didn't participate in spring ball I don't think that would fit the text book courtroom definition of "Pretty sure Danzy stuck it out for his whole redshirt freshman year and then some".
 
CougEd said:
Well...if the fall of 2005 was the beginning of his redshirt freshman year, then he didn't participate in spring ball I don't think that would fit the text book courtroom definition of "Pretty sure Danzy stuck it out for his whole redshirt freshman year and then some".
Click to expand...

Didn't participate because he was injured? Not on the team? Trapped under CougEd's mattress?
 
dgibbons said:
Didn't participate because he was injured? Not on the team? Trapped under CougEd's mattress?
Click to expand...

An August 22, 2006 story from Brand x states that Danzy transferred to Alabama A&M in the spring of 2006. He was at WSU for the 2005 season. Does that fit Mr. Money Tree's "quits after three months" narrative? Probably not.
Nonetheless, here Mr. Money Tree is again talking about one Doba recruit from 12 years ago who didn't pan out.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Orecoug
Wasn't Shelton Danzy I was thinking of--some other kid with lots of hype that committed but never ended up making it to WSU. My apologies to Mr. Danzy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S

REC: Battle for 2022 Gig Harbor OLB looks to be 2 horse race

Replies
0
Views
130
Wazzu War Room
ScottHood
S
PeteTheChop

Which recruit in this class are you most excited to see in Crimson & Gray?

Replies
8
Views
955
The Cougar Lair
dgibbons
dgibbons
B

HOT BOARD: Defense (2/4, 12:35 a.m.)

Replies
0
Views
749
Wazzu War Room
britton ransford
B
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back