The mutts signed only 2 o-linemen and 1 d-lineman (an end)
- Thread starter YakiCoug
- Start date
There was actually a 4th (DL) that was delayed entry from last year that just joined. Given that it was a small class this year and that 35% of the commits from the prior two classes were in the trenches it wasn't as big of need at this point.
We here are of the belief that since 8 or 9 of the players are on the line (5 offense, 3 or 4 on defense), you need 8 or 9 lineman in every class. We saw with the Seahawks early this season how not having a line can wreak havoc on an offense.
I agree that the lines are important but given that UW only loses 5 from the lines this year it wouldn't make any sense for them to use 50% of their available slots on the lines.
We once had a staff that thought - and still have some fans who believe - signing seven high school o-linemen in four years was a good idea.
Ya I love this logic. Usually linemen don't have the "star power" Petersen lusts after. Gotta keep the dwindling fan base happy with smoke and mirrors.
Last edited:
maybe it was a down year for lineman, or perhaps lineman just no longer want to go to UW
It is just our philosophy. Lineman are seldom sexy, but you always, always spend more resources on lineman than any other position. It doesn't matter if it is stocked today because that can change quickly.
It is always easier to find a skill player than can contribute than find a 300lb player that can. Society has a lot more 6' 190 people than 6'5" 300lb people. So, you always over recruit lineman in every class.
You could be right, but we do not think so. We have seen this in action, not only for WSU, but other schools as well. We'll see going forward.
I heard there was a major shortage of OL on the West Coast this year…
I heard there was a major shortage of OL on the West Coast this year…
This made me laugh.
I heard there was a major shortage of OL on the West Coast this year…
I heard San Diego State took them all. They signed 7....four of them from Texas, Philadelphia, Kansas and Nevada.
I don't think this was a wise move. Looking at their roster they have some depth, but things can change really quickly and that sets the future pretty thin.
Even looking at things for UW on defense they lose 3 of their top tacklers. I still expect them to be good next year, but I sort of wonder about Petersen's future.
He took over a well established Boise program and looking at how other highly regarded Boise coaches panned out I think something about Boise makes coaches look better than they really are. They always have that under dog chip on their shoulder attitude, and that works for them.
But at UW? With all the money and facilities...I just don't know if really will be able to replicate boise success.
Here's how other Boise Coaches faired in the Pac-12
Hawkins/Colorado
2-10
6-7
5-7
Koetter/ASU
8-6
5-7
9-3
Petersen/Udummy
8-6
7-6
?
I think he will follow the Koetter mold and win 9 games next year but Koetter fizzled afterwards
7-5.7-6 the next couple years.
While I don't think that actually isn't that bad..I think UW may get antsy if Petersen doesn't deliver big seasons like he did at Boise quickly. UW sort of has this ridiculous idea that they are an elite Pac-12 team, and truth be told...they are not. They are kind of what Arizona is. Kinda okay and just that. Yes they will have some flourishes where they are good, but also some where they are bad. In the end they are kind of a mediocre program with a lot of money.
Stanford and Oregon are the elite teams in the North. USC in the south at least currently.
How they are recruiting seems a little suspect.
They went from 5 in 2014 to 3 in 2015 and then this year less.
Now while they have guys who can play right now I but they are running at Sark recruits primarily. Feeney, Qualls, a alot of those players are Sark guys. Yeah Sark had his issues, but still it will be interesting to see what happens when the guts of the team are made up of Petersen instead of Sark.
Just looking at things I think for the next two years UW will be good but a collapse is looming. They aren't that great right now, but something just doesn't look right about them from a roster perspective.
Even looking at things for UW on defense they lose 3 of their top tacklers. I still expect them to be good next year, but I sort of wonder about Petersen's future.
He took over a well established Boise program and looking at how other highly regarded Boise coaches panned out I think something about Boise makes coaches look better than they really are. They always have that under dog chip on their shoulder attitude, and that works for them.
But at UW? With all the money and facilities...I just don't know if really will be able to replicate boise success.
Here's how other Boise Coaches faired in the Pac-12
Hawkins/Colorado
2-10
6-7
5-7
Koetter/ASU
8-6
5-7
9-3
Petersen/Udummy
8-6
7-6
?
I think he will follow the Koetter mold and win 9 games next year but Koetter fizzled afterwards
7-5.7-6 the next couple years.
While I don't think that actually isn't that bad..I think UW may get antsy if Petersen doesn't deliver big seasons like he did at Boise quickly. UW sort of has this ridiculous idea that they are an elite Pac-12 team, and truth be told...they are not. They are kind of what Arizona is. Kinda okay and just that. Yes they will have some flourishes where they are good, but also some where they are bad. In the end they are kind of a mediocre program with a lot of money.
Stanford and Oregon are the elite teams in the North. USC in the south at least currently.
How they are recruiting seems a little suspect.
They went from 5 in 2014 to 3 in 2015 and then this year less.
Now while they have guys who can play right now I but they are running at Sark recruits primarily. Feeney, Qualls, a alot of those players are Sark guys. Yeah Sark had his issues, but still it will be interesting to see what happens when the guts of the team are made up of Petersen instead of Sark.
Just looking at things I think for the next two years UW will be good but a collapse is looming. They aren't that great right now, but something just doesn't look right about them from a roster perspective.
The argument that some other coaches past performance can be an indicator of a totally different coaches future performance has always cracked me up. There's some serious leaps of logic in that one.
As far as recruiting rankings, the main reason for the drop is due to the low number of scholarships they had available this year. The theoretical overall quality (# of stars ☺) of who they got was as high as they have ever been. We'll see how it pans out.
As far as recruiting rankings, the main reason for the drop is due to the low number of scholarships they had available this year. The theoretical overall quality (# of stars ☺) of who they got was as high as they have ever been. We'll see how it pans out.
Well Boise State has had 4 coaches now all having a high level of success in a row. Not a single one having the same sort of success anywhere else. Once is an anomaly, twice is Deja Vu, 3 times is a pattern, and I think we are looking at another pattern.
Boise's unique success has hinged on a few things. Low academic standards, low surrounding competition (Wac/MWC competition), and the unique weird setting. Whole area revolves around that football team, the blue turf etc.
Take those unique advantages away and well...the results have not matched. You can chose to ignore history, but it has a habit of coming back again and again.
Sounds like it was a down year or two for Dt's that is for sure. None over the last two years and we had it rolling. recruiting sure can be fickle.
The Huskies lose one OL off the team that kicked our ass. Their second team OL returns intact as well.
On the defensive front 7, they lose one DT, 1 Buck and one LB from their three deep. All accounts say Peterson was planning to take a small class by design in 2016.
Source: ourlads.com
I think it's best for us to focus on where we're going right now rather than invent perceived vulnerability from a team younger than ours we can't beat.
On the defensive front 7, they lose one DT, 1 Buck and one LB from their three deep. All accounts say Peterson was planning to take a small class by design in 2016.
Source: ourlads.com
I think it's best for us to focus on where we're going right now rather than invent perceived vulnerability from a team younger than ours we can't beat.
If you do not want to talk about this subject, then don't. Ignore it. But, do not tell the rest of us what to do.
OK, now act like your a WSU fan, respond to your own post and demonstrate how we're supposed to respond. You sound like a huskie to me.
Thanks, Ruth. Only a mutt slut would spend the time digging up this stuff. Showing your dog pee and grape panty colors again?
Two consecutive years deficient in OL recruiting will definitely bite at some point. We know that from personal experience. Can't really argue the point.
I suspect that the UW was focused on 4 & 5 star OL that they lost, and permitted the lure of skill position recruiting to mask what was happening until too late. There clearly was no "plan B" when it came to OL candidates...perhaps because the institutional arrogance didn't permit the staff to think that they might possibly lose out on most of their targets.
I suspect that the UW was focused on 4 & 5 star OL that they lost, and permitted the lure of skill position recruiting to mask what was happening until too late. There clearly was no "plan B" when it came to OL candidates...perhaps because the institutional arrogance didn't permit the staff to think that they might possibly lose out on most of their targets.
Seriously, other than a couple of questionable 4 stars, they really didn't do well. They really needed to take 25 and clean up the roster a bit, but then again- they can't get the players to replace them.
Hood,
More proof above of the UW Troll Chinook.
You really think a Coug would write & promote UW?
Come on Scott.......Send him off to Sponge Land. The board has already improved with him gone. Chinook gone would continue the improvement.
More proof above of the UW Troll Chinook.
You really think a Coug would write & promote UW?
Come on Scott.......Send him off to Sponge Land. The board has already improved with him gone. Chinook gone would continue the improvement.
Then why the hell did you write this, "I think it's best for us to focus on where we're going right now rather than invent perceived vulnerability from a team younger than ours we can't beat."
I believe that with perhaps the best QB in college, WSU wins that game. Look at what Oregon did on offense against TCU in the first half in their bowl with Vernon Adams. Look at what Oregon did on offense when he was injured and missed the second half.
It is wonderful that you have been pumping up the uw so much and downplaying the Cougars so much.
Yes, it's time for chinookpirate and her various handles to be permanently banned. Some who were taken in by her might object, but it's time to rid this board of trash.
They only had room for 17-18, couldn't take 25. Unless you're talking about pushing guys out but I hope not, saw too much of that with Sark.
I knew you would get excited about talking about the Doogs. After all, you spend most of your time on Dawgman.
Coaches everywhere gently (and sometimes not gently) nudge players out. A coach I admire at the uw, Coach Romar has done it at times. It comes down to if a player wants to sit and not play or go down to a lesser school and play. Honestly, you could be right and the uw will be fine. But, I think it is a razor thin margin. All teams have multiple busts, including Alabama. The more players you get each year that have real potential, the more likely you have enough of that class that will contribute.
You might think a team in transition as made up of players that haven't bought in, those on the fence and those of who have wholeheartedly bought in. New players are going to gravitate to the enthusiastic leaders to a greater extent if there's less people being negative or showing less support. Every bit counts and if you can eliminate (let's say) 8 more- it makes the process much less painful and much quicker. If you watched the Pac12 program in the fall.....Gary Anderson went from "Ah, shucks fellas...I just love all of ya" to "if you don't try harder and buy in....I want you to leave"....over the course of about 3 games. Anderson is going to improve that team and it may take 3-4 seasons to see dramatic results, but they'll come. He's a really good coach.
Yes. Players will also take leadership que's from the best players on the team. If you cannot get the best players on the team to buy in, then it is best to remove them. Anderson is a very good coach. The conference has many of them. It is going to be fun to see how it all plays out in the coming years.
Similar threads
