Search results

It is crazy. I know what you mean. Fvck that, let the best man play.

I meant I hope he really was the best of the guys on the team.

Or so we hope.

In that case we are in agreement. The fact that our OL coach decided to start this guy at OT is mind boggling. The kid would have been a developmental player at App state.

That is why we were his only FBS offer. You would be surprised what type of lines these little schools pump out. There are schools in Connecticut and schit that have guys who are 5'11 200 lbs starting on the line lol. I mean Bill Bellichek played center at some D3 school lol.

He listed himself as a Tackle on his own Hudl page lmao. His highlight tape(that he created) lists him as a tackle His highlight tape is all him at tackle. His Miami Bio reads No. 100 offensive tackle nationally by ESPN.com . If you go to the 2018 players rankings he is listed as a tackle. The...

Look forward to hearing an update. Appreciate the info bro.

Having no d-1 offers is not "poor evaluation by recruiting services". If he actually is good it means it is poor evaluation by "all the P5 schools that saw him and didn't offer him".

You picked absolutely terrible examples to prove your point. These guys were ruined by Golden and are still floating around in the league after 5-6 seasons. They both just signed contracts for another year.

LOL! Here is the thing. 45% hit rate on 5 stars is really good compared to 3 and 4 star hit rates even on the OL. That is just my point.

I was looking at 18. I said 90% of them ended up making NFL rosters. Not in the first round. First round its going to be a lot lower. Even the majority of 5 star OL end up making NFL rosters. The same cannot be said for 3 stars.

Clemsons starting line up had 1 5 star Carman 2 3 stars anchrum and Cervanka and 2 4 stars Pollar and Simpson. Who is hitting at 90%?

Lucky for us we play in the Coastal. I can see us winning it this year.

Lol they lost to BYU and then destroyed us in the bowl game.

You are using a single draft class. I am looking at the trend over the past 5 years which is a much larger sample size. They may be worse at grading O linemen, but they still are very good at it. The fact is the teams that stack 4 and 5 star Olineman are generally better than teams that stack 3...

Lol no I still disagree with 35 v 90. I am saying you take the higher percentage guys. Which are 5 stars. I do agree that the recruiting services are worse at grading OL than any other position, but they are still pretty solid at ranking them. Also agree Watson was more important than Hyatt.

Very true. Thankfully the coaches don't believe that BS.

That is not what I am arguing. I am not saying "well if you can't get a 5 star just don't get a lineman at all". I am fine with picking up 3 stars if thats really all we can get. I just can't stand these porsters that think stacking 3 stars is better than stacking 5 stars.

I don't disagree with any of your statements. I am arguing with someone says 3 stars are BETTER than 5 stars. I agree that we are far away and are not able to win the recruiting battles. I just want to point out that loading up with blue chips is how you win NCs.

This is true, but look at what happens to Whisky every time they play a team that actually recruits at a high level. They beat up on the trash B1G west teams, but can't beat teams with actual talent.