Washington State's Recruiting

[Knight Shift]

It sucks. WSU must suck, then too, right? Mike Leach is in his fourth season. Despite the embarrassing loss to Portland State, WSU went 9-4 this year and played extremely well against PAC 10 competition.

Here is a summary of WSU's recruiting class rankings by Rivals:
2016- 52 (no 4 or 5 stars)
2015- 55 (two four stars)
2014- 69 (no 4 or 5 stars)
2013- 53 (one 4 star)
2012- 55 (two 4 stars).
Average 2012-2015= 58

Beat Oregon, recruiting rankings 2016-2012 were (28, 17, 26, 22, 16) avg 2012-15= 20
Bear Arizona,recruiting rankings 2016-2012 were ( 51, 41, 28, 46, 37) avg 2012-15= 38
Beat Arizona State, recruiting rankings 2016-2012 were (34, 20, 21, 34, 23) avg 2012-15=27
Beat UCLA, recruiting rankings 2016-2012 were (11, 13, 18, 8, 12) avg 2012-15= 13
Beat Colorado, recruiting rankings 2016-2012 were (64, 70, 64, 68 36) avg 2012-15= 58
Beat Miami, recruiting rankings 2016-2012 were (22, 26, 12, 9, 20) avg 2012-15= 17
Lost to Stanford 28-30 average recruiting ranking 2012-15 = (18, 14, 63, 5)= 25
*Left Rutgers game out for obvious reasons, but our average recruiting class rank beat theirs 2012-2015.

Did Mike Leach and WSU fans go into the games with the mindset of F* it, we are going to lose. Our recruiting sucks, our recruits suck, and we will never compete against Oregon, Arizona, Arizona State, UCLA, Miami and Stanford?

Yes, Jimmies and Joes matter. But X's and O's matter too.

I hear the comebacks--Mike Leach has been coaching a long time. We would have been better off with an experience coach, blah, blah, blah.

I'll come up with more examples if needed. But for now, would the wound lickers just STFU and let Coach Ash and his staff work on strength, conditioning and player development?

 

[Kbee3]

It sucks. WSU must suck, then too, right? Mike Leach is in his fourth season. Despite the embarrassing loss to Portland State, WSU went 9-4 this year and played extremely well against PAC 10 competition.

Here is a summary of WSU's recruiting class rankings by Rivals:
2016- 52 (no 4 or 5 stars)
2015- 55 (two four stars)
2014- 69 (no 4 or 5 stars)
2013- 53 (one 4 star)
2012- 55 (two 4 stars).
Average 2012-2015= 58

Beat Oregon, recruiting rankings 2016-2012 were (28, 17, 26, 22, 16) avg 2012-15= 20
Bear Arizona,recruiting rankings 2016-2012 were ( 51, 41, 28, 46, 37) avg 2012-15= 38
Beat Arizona State, recruiting rankings 2016-2012 were (34, 20, 21, 34, 23) avg 2012-15=27
Beat UCLA, recruiting rankings 2016-2012 were (11, 13, 18, 8, 12) avg 2012-15= 13
Beat Colorado, recruiting rankings 2016-2012 were (64, 70, 64, 68 36) avg 2012-15= 58
Beat Miami, recruiting rankings 2016-2012 were (22, 26, 12, 9, 20) avg 2012-15= 17
Lost to Stanford 28-30 average recruiting ranking 2012-15 = (18, 14, 63, 5)= 25
*Left Rutgers game out for obvious reasons, but our average recruiting class rank beat theirs 2012-2015.

Did Mike Leach and WSU fans go into the games with the mindset of F* it, we are going to lose. Our recruiting sucks, our recruits suck, and we will never compete against Oregon, Arizona, Arizona State, UCLA, Miami and Stanford?

Yes, Jimmies and Joes matter. But X's and O's matter too.

I hear the comebacks--Mike Leach has been coaching a long time. We would have been better off with an experience coach, blah, blah, blah.

I'll come up with more examples if needed. But for now, would the wound lickers just STFU and let Coach Ash and his staff work on strength, conditioning and player development?

Uh....a quality quarterback can cover for lots of weaknesses. Washington State has had a number of quality quarterbacks. Rutgers has had.....uh....er.......

 

[vkj91]

Remember we aren't running their spread. That being said, I think WR is the easiest piece to find in our type of O.

 

[Knight Shift]

Remember we aren't running their spread. That being said, I think WR is the easiest piece to find in our type of O.

What?

 

[Finster Baby]

If Ash is as good as some of us hope he is, then we have the talent on this team to shock some people. If guys work their tails off this off season, and I think they will, we can win some games. Flood was obviously in over his head based on what we are hearing. I don't think that is the case with Ash. Let's see what happens in the spring. We will see how guys come in for spring ball. Guys like Hamilton and certain members of the O line. They will be my barometer on how the workouts went and if we bought in. It always seemed to me that our players were small in the leg department vs other BIG teams. It all starts in the legs and hips. Strength and explosiveness. Just one fans opinion.

 

[S.B. Crumb]

A couple of years ago, I ran my own analyses and kept finding that once you get past the top 15 ranking recruiting classes or so, there was not a strong correlation between on field ranking and off field ranking.

So yes, unless we aspire to be a top 15 team right this minute, then X's and O's matter. Player development matters. More than most people understand, even some coaches themselves ("It’s not the X’s and O’s, it’s the Jimmys and Joes” <---BS).

 

[Knight Shift]

If Ash is as good as some of us hope he is, then we have the talent on this team to shock some people. If guys work their tails off this off season, and I think they will, we can win some games. Flood was obviously in over his head based on what we are hearing. I don't think that is the case with Ash. Let's see what happens in the spring. We will see how guys come in for spring ball. Guys like Hamilton and certain members of the O line. They will be my barometer on how the workouts went and if we bought in. It always seemed to me that our players were small in the leg department vs other BIG teams. It all starts in the legs and hips. Strength and explosiveness. Just one fans opinion.

Exactly. #FIGHT.
Are we going to knock off Michigan, MSU and Ohio State? Most probably not. But I'm not backing down on anyone else on our schedule, including Iowa. Do I think we are going to win all of the other games? Of course not. But We can be in them, and I see 6 wins as a realistic possibility. Do you think Coach Ash and his assistants are licking their wounds and penciling in losses against all of the other teams we are playing because they have higher recruiting rankings?

 

[rutgersdave]

Our biggest problem during the Flood era was our defense. That's why we were blown out by the Top teams in the Big Ten not our offense. Correct the defense and we will look respectable next year and recruiting will be easier. The spread offense will be the cherry on top.

 

[NewJerseyHawk]

The ability to win against "better" competition like a Washington State did last year was fueled strictly by their ability to recruit

A) JUCO's at a high rate of success.....you get a more physically ready kid that has talent and ultimately doesn't get re-ranked based on where he may have been in High School.

B) Washington State along with other Pac 12 schools like Utah, Washington, Arizona, recruit the Samoan islands and Hawaii at a very good clip to get offensive lineman and defensive lineman that just never get evaluated as accurately as they should.....so much so that if you follow the NFL draft, their offensive line play this year was borderline dominate at times, despite the fact that Leach ultimately refused to run the ball and the rankings of their lineman is usually non-existant.....the islands and Samoa churn out high quality players each and every year.

C) WSU has a pattern of recruiting high caliber athletes at WR.....they may not be rated properly, but Crabcraft or whatever his name was in the slot, ultimately catches almost anything in his immediate area.....pass too low, high, behind him, he almost always made plays.

The spread offense also travels well and can function in most weather conditions, except extreme rain.....BUT rainy conditions tend to favor offensive passing teams more than the defense, where a crystal clear day gives a defense the advantage.

The original poster is however correct in that the system overcomes the ability of recruit at a high level. What eventually happens is a team like Wazzu winds up recruiting to create depth for the system they run and it doesn't provide enough balance on offense or defense. That means if they had a better dedication for running the ball, it would help their defense and take pressure off their QB at times.....it also winds up hurting their defensive recruits, because so much focus is on offense and ensuring the depth is there to overcome injuries.

 

[vkj91]

What?

Not sure of the question? In the pro style we needed big, tall, fast WR that could create separation and beat people over the top. in this offense we can get away with quick shifty guys that make catches on timing routes. I truly think there are lots of athletes that can fit that system. It's why you see lower level teams move the ball against P5 teams every year.

 

[RU2055]

Remember we aren't running their spread. That being said, I think WR is the easiest piece to find in our type of O.

I agree! The pro-style WR is harder to find - tall, great hands, jumping ability and ability to separate. The smaller shifty WRs, which we have in Patton, Tsimis and Grant, would excel better in a spread offense.

 

[Knight Shift]

Not sure of the question? In the pro style we needed big, tall, fast WR that could create separation and beat people over the top. in this offense we can get away with quick shifty guys that make catches on timing routes. I truly think there are lots of athletes that can fit that system. It's why you see lower level teams move the ball against P5 teams every year.

OK, got it. And what you said is in line with NJ Hawk. Leach's system is not the best model, and Hawk added a lot of back info. We are in a tougher division. We had multiple problems with an extremely poor defense, compounded by the fact that in the meat grinder games, our defense seemed to be on the field 40 minutes per game with all of the 3 and outs.
I'll work on some more examples. Would their be reason for more optimism with higher recruiting classes--of course? But the point of my post is that our coaches certainly will not have a loser mentality going into the season, nor should we fans, merely because this year's class is not rated highly based on recruiting services. We can look back on our own 2006 team and the 2 and 3 star kids who made that team a force to be reckoned with, combined with Greg's defensive schemes.
As always, I have cause for optimism.

 

[topdecktiger]

It sucks. WSU must suck, then too, right? Mike Leach is in his fourth season. Despite the embarrassing loss to Portland State, WSU went 9-4 this year and played extremely well against PAC 10 competition.

Here is a summary of WSU's recruiting class rankings by Rivals:
2016- 52 (no 4 or 5 stars)
2015- 55 (two four stars)
2014- 69 (no 4 or 5 stars)
2013- 53 (one 4 star)
2012- 55 (two 4 stars).
Average 2012-2015= 58

Beat Oregon, recruiting rankings 2016-2012 were (28, 17, 26, 22, 16) avg 2012-15= 20
Bear Arizona,recruiting rankings 2016-2012 were ( 51, 41, 28, 46, 37) avg 2012-15= 38
Beat Arizona State, recruiting rankings 2016-2012 were (34, 20, 21, 34, 23) avg 2012-15=27
Beat UCLA, recruiting rankings 2016-2012 were (11, 13, 18, 8, 12) avg 2012-15= 13
Beat Colorado, recruiting rankings 2016-2012 were (64, 70, 64, 68 36) avg 2012-15= 58
Beat Miami, recruiting rankings 2016-2012 were (22, 26, 12, 9, 20) avg 2012-15= 17
Lost to Stanford 28-30 average recruiting ranking 2012-15 = (18, 14, 63, 5)= 25
*Left Rutgers game out for obvious reasons, but our average recruiting class rank beat theirs 2012-2015.

Did Mike Leach and WSU fans go into the games with the mindset of F* it, we are going to lose. Our recruiting sucks, our recruits suck, and we will never compete against Oregon, Arizona, Arizona State, UCLA, Miami and Stanford?

Yes, Jimmies and Joes matter. But X's and O's matter too.

I hear the comebacks--Mike Leach has been coaching a long time. We would have been better off with an experience coach, blah, blah, blah.

I'll come up with more examples if needed. But for now, would the wound lickers just STFU and let Coach Ash and his staff work on strength, conditioning and player development?

Recruiting does matter. Here is the flaw in your analysis. With good coaching, you can have a winning team in any given year. The issue is doing it consistently. At Washington St, Mike Leach has been 3-9, 6-7, 3-9, 9-4. He had one winning season out of four. Here's the problem. Yeah, you can take 2/3 star players, and develop them to compete with 4/5 star players. The problem is that after you spend all that time developing those players, they graduate and you have to start the whole process over again. It is extremely difficult to constantly develop players over and over again. The odds don't favor sustained success. The odds of sustained success are much greater if you have superior talent. It's easier to recruit ready-made talent that it is to develop it.

 

[WhiteBus]

I wonder if Leach visits or recruits defensive players??

 

[Knight Shift]

Recruiting does matter. Here is the flaw in your analysis. With good coaching, you can have a winning team in any given year. The issue is doing it consistently. At Washington St, Mike Leach has been 3-9, 6-7, 3-9, 9-4. He had one winning season out of four. Here's the problem. Yeah, you can take 2/3 star players, and develop them to compete with 4/5 star players. The problem is that after you spend all that time developing those players, they graduate and you have to start the whole process over again. It is extremely difficult to constantly develop players over and over again. The odds don't favor sustained success. The odds of sustained success are much greater if you have superior talent. It's easier to recruit ready-made talent that it is to develop it.

I wasn't arguing the point that Leach will have continued success with those classes. Maybe he will in his system. My point was all is not lost because one or two classes are not highly rated. I expect a better "rated" class in 2017, followed by improvement in 2018 and so on.

 

[topdecktiger]

I wasn't arguing the point that Leach will have continued success with those classes. Maybe he will in his system. My point was all is not lost because one or two classes are not highly rated. I expect a better "rated" class in 2017, followed by improvement in 2018 and so on.

Yeah, that goes to my point. The talent has to improve. You assume the ratings get better. Maybe, maybe not. If a team's recruits are consistently outside the top-30 or so range, then you won't see significant improvement in the win-loss record.

 

[rubaseball78]

"Crabcraft or whatever his name was in the slot, ultimately catches almost anything in his immediate area.....pass too low, high, behind him, he almost always made plays" - Except, thankfully, for one punt.

 

[Sec 127]

Craycraft fumbled a punt to help lose a game but wasn't he the guy who made the improbable catch to win it this year? Thought that game was going to go in the W column.

 

[BoogieKnight]

Recruiting does matter. Here is the flaw in your analysis. With good coaching, you can have a winning team in any given year. The issue is doing it consistently. At Washington St, Mike Leach has been 3-9, 6-7, 3-9, 9-4. He had one winning season out of four. Here's the problem. Yeah, you can take 2/3 star players, and develop them to compete with 4/5 star players. The problem is that after you spend all that time developing those players, they graduate and you have to start the whole process over again. It is extremely difficult to constantly develop players over and over again. The odds don't favor sustained success. The odds of sustained success are much greater if you have superior talent. It's easier to recruit ready-made talent that it is to develop it.

Tiger is right. We saw this with our 2006 team that we developed and were really unable to replicate that kind of development again consistently with the same level of recruiting. We started recruiting a little better in some spots (AD, Logan Ryan, Sanu, etc.) but we never did develop those underrecruited OL the same as we did in 2006.

 

[BoogieKnight]

What?

Receivers are very easy to find. The new staff didn't prioritize them in the one month or so they were here before signing day. I guarantee next year's WR haul will be large and impressive.

 

[PSU_Nut]

It sucks. WSU must suck, then too, right? Mike Leach is in his fourth season. Despite the embarrassing loss to Portland State, WSU went 9-4 this year and played extremely well against PAC 10 competition.

Here is a summary of WSU's recruiting class rankings by Rivals:
2016- 52 (no 4 or 5 stars)
2015- 55 (two four stars)
2014- 69 (no 4 or 5 stars)
2013- 53 (one 4 star)
2012- 55 (two 4 stars).
Average 2012-2015= 58

Beat Oregon, recruiting rankings 2016-2012 were (28, 17, 26, 22, 16) avg 2012-15= 20
Bear Arizona,recruiting rankings 2016-2012 were ( 51, 41, 28, 46, 37) avg 2012-15= 38
Beat Arizona State, recruiting rankings 2016-2012 were (34, 20, 21, 34, 23) avg 2012-15=27
Beat UCLA, recruiting rankings 2016-2012 were (11, 13, 18, 8, 12) avg 2012-15= 13
Beat Colorado, recruiting rankings 2016-2012 were (64, 70, 64, 68 36) avg 2012-15= 58
Beat Miami, recruiting rankings 2016-2012 were (22, 26, 12, 9, 20) avg 2012-15= 17
Lost to Stanford 28-30 average recruiting ranking 2012-15 = (18, 14, 63, 5)= 25
*Left Rutgers game out for obvious reasons, but our average recruiting class rank beat theirs 2012-2015.

Did Mike Leach and WSU fans go into the games with the mindset of F* it, we are going to lose. Our recruiting sucks, our recruits suck, and we will never compete against Oregon, Arizona, Arizona State, UCLA, Miami and Stanford?

Yes, Jimmies and Joes matter. But X's and O's matter too.

I hear the comebacks--Mike Leach has been coaching a long time. We would have been better off with an experience coach, blah, blah, blah.

I'll come up with more examples if needed. But for now, would the wound lickers just STFU and let Coach Ash and his staff work on strength, conditioning and player development?

He is also is 21-29 at WSU. Is that your goal? One winning season in four years?

 

[Knight Shift]

He is also is 21-29 at WSU. Is that your goal? One winning season in four years?

You lack reading comprehension. Go to the BWI board. Re-read the post and don't be a dick.

 

[apb23]

He is also is 21-29 at WSU. Is that your goal? One winning season in four years?

Give Franklin two more years and none of Bill O'Brien's recruits and they'd be worse than 21-29

 

[Knight Shift]

Yeah, that goes to my point. The talent has to improve. You assume the ratings get better. Maybe, maybe not. If a team's recruits are consistently outside the top-30 or so range, then you won't see significant improvement in the win-loss record.

I think if our classes stayed in the 50's (like Flood's-maybe lower), we would do better than 4-8. And no, that's not the goal. The point of my post is Leach had 4 years of pretty lousy recruiting (at least by Rivals' standards), and fared well this year. He is in his fourth year and had to clean up a lot of leftover problems and install his system. He was 3-9 in year 1, 6-7 year 2, and 3-9 in year 3. Bumps in the road, and an upward trend, or was 2015 an anomaly? We'll have to wait and see. WSU is not the best example, but is is an example of a coach with a system that turned it around.

An interesting case on the opposite side is Cal. They have always had classes in the 10's, 20's and 30's. Sonny Dykes seems to be turning it around, but the classes that preceded him in 2012-2009 were (23, 17, 11, and 42), yet Cal's record with all that talent was:
2013: 1-11
2014: 5-7
2015: 8-5

 

[PSU_Nut]

You lack reading comprehension. Go to the BWI board. Re-read the post and don't be a dick.

Your missing my point. Sure you can have outlier seasons. You cite a ton of teams who had one year off success like UCF. However you can ignore the trend that they typically don't maintain that level of success without recruiting. It took leach 4 years to get that one winning season.

 

[Knight Shift]

Your missing my point. Sure you can have outlier seasons. You cite a ton of teams who had one year off success like UCF. However you can ignore the trend that they typically don't maintain that level of success without recruiting. It took leach 4 years to get that one winning season.

My point was (and we have yet to see) that WSU did not get manhandled with lousy recruiting classes. It took Leach 3 years to install his system. Will he succeed next year? We'll see.

Just sick and tired of our OWN fans pissing and moaning about everything and throwing in the towel before the season begins. Most of this year's recruits on most teams will not even see the field. The loser mentality and self-loathing of some fans has to stop.

As noted above, despite having relatively stellar recruiting classes for quite a few years, Cal has lagged. Similar to Leach, Dykes had to install his system, and maybe they will improve upon their 8-5 season this year after a bad first 2 seasons.

 

[FanuSanu52]

FWIW, WSU should have been 10-3 with a win over Stanford. Missed a very makable game-closing field goal.

 

[Knight Shift]

FWIW, WSU should have been 10-3 with a win over Stanford. Missed a very makable game-closing field goal.

And WSU should have beat Portland State, but they still would have been 10-3, because they should have lost to RU, if our DB did not tip that ball up to their receiver. And we should have one the Michigan State game, if we did not spike the ball on fourth down. And we should have won the Maryland game. But then we would have been 7-5, and bowl bound, and maybe we would still have Flood as HC, and @RealityChech2 would be a happy camper, and we would have had a top 20 recruiting class. o_O

 

[Yeah Baby]

A couple of years ago, I ran my own analyses and kept finding that once you get past the top 15 ranking recruiting classes or so, there was not a strong correlation between on field ranking and off field ranking.

So yes, unless we aspire to be a top 15 team right this minute, then X's and O's matter. Player development matters. More than most people understand, even some coaches themselves ("It’s not the X’s and O’s, it’s the Jimmys and Joes” <---BS).

Exactly! Outside of last year and a couple of others we have always done better than our recruiting classes. Player development and coaching does matter. Player retention us HUGE and that is the one complaint I have about or last coach. Too many defections or suspensions.

Our schedule these last two years hurt us more than our recruiting. In the New Big East and AAC we were comparable or better than most teams we played talent wise. The last two years we played a gauntlet of a schedule. Outside of OSU, MICH and MSU we are not that far off in talent this coming season.

And don't get me started it's because WSU throws the ball a ton and we liked a balanced Offense. It was their schedule that allowed them to be 9-4 including us not have 5 D backs available and still almost beating them. Switch our schedules around and they do not finish 9-4 IMO. I don't think we do much better than 4-8 either TBH. It just was a bad year waiting to happen with all of the off field issues.

 

[FanuSanu52]

And WSU should have beat Portland State, but they still would have been 10-3, because they should have lost to RU, if our DB did not tip that ball up to their receiver. And we should have one the Michigan State game, if we did not spike the ball on fourth down. And we should have won the Maryland game. But then we would have been 7-5, and bowl bound, and maybe we would still have Flood as HC, and @RealityChech2 would be a happy camper, and we would have had a top 20 recruiting class. o_O

I was trying to support your point, but I guess you're to enamored with seeing your own comments in print to realize it. Basically giving the game away to the Rose Bowl winner was still an impressive performance and WSU was a solid team through and through.

 

[Knight Shift]

I was trying to support your point, but I guess you're to enamored with seeing your own comments in print to realize it. Basically giving the game away to the Rose Bowl winner was still an impressive performance and WSU was a solid team through and through.

Oh, I wasn't mocking your post in any way. I'm thankful you were one of few who supported the point. I was jumping in before someone else did with their "could have, should have , would have" argument. I was very impressed with how solid WSU's OL and DL were this year, as it seemed their QB had minutes to throw the ball. I am a big fan of Mike Leach, as he came from a nontraditional coaching background (law degree with no football experience) and became a student of Hal Mumme and ran with it.[cheers]

 

[Yeah Baby]

Tiger is right. We saw this with our 2006 team that we developed and were really unable to replicate that kind of development again consistently with the same level of recruiting. We started recruiting a little better in some spots (AD, Logan Ryan, Sanu, etc.) but we never did develop those underrecruited OL the same as we did in 2006.

Recruiting was actually getting better after 2006 so we did get more talent after that season but I agree with your point. 2006 was a perfect combo of talent and veteran leadership. As for the OL, 2 were Juco's and one was a Huge (sizewise) project. It wasn't just our OL. We had 2 very good blocking TE's and an awesome blocking FB. The D was a bunch of no names that excelled due to being veterans who played their hearts out which allowed Schiano to call it aggressively. Great assignment Football. So much fun to watch and only 2012 came close Defensively. I long to see Defenses like that again.

 

[FanuSanu52]

Oh, I wasn't mocking your post in any way. I'm thankful you were one of few who supported the point. I was jumping in before someone else did with their "could have, should have , would have" argument. I was very impressed with how solid WSU's OL and DL were this year, as it seemed their QB had minutes to throw the ball. I am a big fan of Mike Leach, as he came from a nontraditional coaching background (law degree with no football experience) and became a student of Hal Mumme and ran with it.[cheers]

Gotcha ... Damn forum misinterpretations! My apologies for lashing out unnecessarily; I agree with your overall intent here. Let's give the guy a chance.

 

[BoogieKnight]

Recruiting was actually getting better after 2006 so we did get more talent after that season but I agree with your point. 2006 was a perfect combo of talent and veteran leadership. As for the OL, 2 were Juco's and one was a Huge (sizewise) project. It wasn't just our OL. We had 2 very good blocking TE's and an awesome blocking FB. The D was a bunch of no names that excelled due to being veterans who played their hearts out which allowed Schiano to call it aggressively. Great assignment Football. So much fun to watch and only 2012 came close Defensively. I long to see Defenses like that again.

That 2006 team was a prime example of upper classmen players who had played A LOT of football going back to their freshman years due to lack of talent/depth. Devraun Thompson, Brian Leonard, Pedro Sosa, Jeremy Zuttah, Ramel Meekins, Papa Beckford, Shawn Tucker (before he got hurt), Ron Girault and the stars definitely aligned for us as no one outside of Tuck got hurt.