Quack Fix: Speed, Speed And More Speed - Your 2010 Oregon Ducks

Al-le-jan-dro Mal-do-na-do! clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clapclapclap

clap clap clapclapclap

U-kraine is-weak!

Is Really Awe-Some

Drink More Whis-key
clap-clap-clapclapclap

Drink More Whis-key
clap-clap-clapclapclap

Rivals goes much more on quality. They have Oregon in the top 15, UW not even in the top 25. On the opposite side of the coin, you have Scout, who doesn’t even have Cal in the top 25. ESPN is somewhere in the middle.

The key is that across the board, Oregon is much more evenly ranked, coming in at 13th, 13th, and 22nd. Just an excellent and rock-solid class across the board.

you have to get the talent. Yes, you get some Patrick Chungs and Jairus Byrd’s who are two* rated and blossom into stars. But higher rated players are much more likely to become big time players.

Okay, who photoshopped a trophy inbetween those guys?

but the reality is that the bar should be set differently for each. I would rate UO and UW as tied for 3rd (USC and UCLA are interchangeable at 1 and 2) in the Pac-10. Oregon got an overall higher quality rating, but UW got 25 deep with 3* talent to fill our weakest area; depth. We could field an entire offensive, defensive and special teams unit from our class. Both teams did exactly what they needed to do, in UO’s case they made a good push nationally and filled in spots they needed to fill with quality talent. For UW, we got quality upside guys at every position, we also signed 12 OL/DL guys to beef up the lines to suit our new schemes.

That’s my biggest gripe with recruiting services is that they all count team rankings differently. Naturally, each talent evaluator will see thins differently, but with the different criteria it’s useless for them to do team rankings.

I will say this, the Pac-10 was by far the biggest winner of all the conferences yesterday. OSU and the Arizona schools had a rough go of it (at least in my opinion) but the other 7 had among the best classes in each programs respective history. The West looks to be talent heavy next year, which could mean even bigger things for the conference if we can upset the SEC in these meaningless rankings.

Just joking. In reality, its nice and all to say your class was #1 or #7, but it won’t be for 2 or 3 years before you see the fruits of your labor. I mean look at USC this year, all those kids came from top 10 classes nationally and end up 5th in the PAC. Results on the field matter more than whatever rivals or scout says.

that USC, UCLA, Washington, and Oregon all had great classe[s]

Some friends of ours at ATQ South (CGB) are wondering why you left them off the list.

Ok, friends is kind of a stretch, we’ll just call them underlings

There is a LOT of potential there and to be sure there will be some real gems, but like any recruiting class history will be what decides whether this is a great class, but it will undoubtedly set the tone for the Sarkisian era in Seattle one way or the other.

I didn’t do that much, seriously.

recruiting rankings are subjective

They are subjective because they are relative.

Oregon literally could not do what Washington did, simply because of available scholarship discrepancy between Oregon and Washington. Trying to compare the two is almost pointless.

On a comparison of quality, Oregon ranks higher. And honestly, Washington did well itself too.
On a comparison of quantity, Washington ranks higher. Oregon did well for quantity too.

It’s like when you were a kid with Christmas presents. Would you rather have few great gifts, or many decent gifts? Either way, you had a great year. But we do know overall the Big-12 daddies definitely don’t have as much money as the Pac-10 daddies. (No NCAA violation jokes intended).

They’re just predicting something inherently random.
You can’t tell 100% for certain whether 3 red dice will roll higher than 2 white dice. But you can tell 100% for certain that the 3 red dice are more likely to roll higher than the 2 white dice.

On that note, I’m attacking Irkutsk from Kamchatka.

It’s not always their fault. Again, Chung only played one year in high school. He never played football before that.

Most recruit scouting begins to take place for a kid’s sophomore year. It also matters that another player draws attention a few years ahead. That gets the scouts there to look at a player to begin with. If a player doesn’t get that exposure, he won’t be a known entity. These are the under-the-radar guys that Mike Riley likes to grab.

show = showing

I think you’re underestimating how easy it is to recruit to UCLA. There’s no reason why the Bruins shouldn’t be competitive year-in, year-out. UCLA’s probably got the prettiest campus in the Pac-10, you play home games in the Rose Bowl, and you’re playing in the media hub of the West Coast. That’s pretty damn desirable.

that the NCAA will do much of anything to “power” programs in big markets like SC or even UCLA. It’s fairly likely the two of them could get a reduction of scholarships, but I seriously doubt there will even be anything so much as a two year bowl ban or anything of major substance. The rumors of SC’s demise are probably premature, it’s more likely they won’t be more then an upper half Pac10 team because Lane isn’t that good of a coach then any serious sanctions.

Offense, not defense, wins championships in the Pac-10….and Cal didn’t get much. At all.

I think the idea is that they might be able to change that paradigm.

I’d say USC defenses had as much, if not more to do with their run at the top of the Pac-10, not to mention Alabama winning the NATIONAL championship with defense.

To answer the initial question, because recruiting rankings are a pure numbers game. No weight is given to where the recruits are, or balance, or anything of the sort.

To the second point, I think you need a balance of both offense and defense. Oregon had the best offense and defense in the Pac-10. It’s no wonder they won the conference by both games.

For Cal specifically, their defense was not good last year. Over the season, they were below average nationally. They needed a lot more depth and talent, especially at linebacker. They’re also going to need to significantly improve on offense. Mainly, they are terrible on passing downs (98th in the country). They have a really good class this year, and will definitely help them out defensively, but I’m not gonna be buying them until they show more consistency on the offensive side of the ball while improving defensively.

According to whom?

Scout had us at 13, Cal at 29.

       Ha ha, caught it b4 u did axeman