Does anyone know what the
- Thread starter graddawg
- Start date
H
hdghdawg
Guest
Rosebowl is one of the better recruitniks in the Southeast. He also doesn't stoop to the levels of the other guys, like Yancy, Neal, Chuck, Gene, those idiots from LSU and Tennessee, etc.
</a><a href="http://nafoom.yuku.com?topic=14300/t/from-the-rosebowl.html">http://nafoom.yuku.com/to.../t/from-the-rosebowl.htmlhdghdawg said:
Talk about spoon feeding the masses what they want to hear. Paul Jones on BDJ may be ten minutes slower with the info, but you can count on it being, ahem, "fair and balanced."
H
hdghdawg
Guest
I can buy all of it. The only ones who can't are the Ole Miss guys that got their feelings hurt, the same ones who said they had 4 receivers on their board higher than Chad Bumphis.
H
hdghdawg
Guest
hdghdawg said:
You do realize that Steve's post is no different than Yancy or anyone else saying Bumphis wasn't that high on our WR board. And you do realize that, it's the same thing as Yancy saying Skinner only had a grayshirt offer, which is why he chose MSU, etc.
I hadn't read any of Robertson's premium stuff before, but if it's all like that, then he's in no way any different than Yancy. If you can't see that, then you're a blind homer.
Edited to add: People that eat stuff like that up as fact and then slam Yancy for making stuff up are just as bad as people who eat Yancy's stuff up while slamming Robertson. They're both feeding the masses what they want to hear. I actually believe that most of their information (from both parties) is at least grounded in a little bit of truth, but every bit of it is stretched or spun to make their school look better.
for a school in desperate need of QBs, that would be beyond retarded. Hell, if it's true, I'd lose faith in the coaches. You don't want that to be true.
I also don't buy that McCray wanted to come to MSU, but Mullen didn't reciprocate. You signed two OL, and OL is a position of need. Even if McCray is a sign and place candidate, it would've been worth the risk for Mullen to go after another OL. If he really didn't go after McCray and McCray was interested, then I'd be worried about Mullen as a coach.
to go after Cotton, McCray or Phillips. I do believe that for whatever reason, once Tyler became firmly committed we stopped recruiting any other QBs and even dropped the other QB commitment Croom already had. Cotton at one time stated MSU was in his top 2 with Ole Miss but we never made any effort to get him on campus. If we really wanted him, I think we would have at least done that.
We do certainly need some stud OL as well, but the new staff only seemed to pursue Aubrey Phillips as another option. Don't know, we will have a large group of OL on scholarship even with just the 2 we signed (like 14) and maybe our staff didn't feel like McCray was significantly better than most of what we have on campus already to be burning an additional scholly there.
Oh, and the new staff definitely did all they could to get back in with Patterson but were stonewalled at every turn. Bottom line in my view is that Robertson definitely wrote all of that from a pure MSU slant but I don't see anything there that's just way out of left field.
We do certainly need some stud OL as well, but the new staff only seemed to pursue Aubrey Phillips as another option. Don't know, we will have a large group of OL on scholarship even with just the 2 we signed (like 14) and maybe our staff didn't feel like McCray was significantly better than most of what we have on campus already to be burning an additional scholly there.
Oh, and the new staff definitely did all they could to get back in with Patterson but were stonewalled at every turn. Bottom line in my view is that Robertson definitely wrote all of that from a pure MSU slant but I don't see anything there that's just way out of left field.
I agree with you that not taking another quarterback seems questionable at best. However, I tend to believe that we didn't pursue Cotton for the simple fact that we didn't pursue any QBs after Russell reaffirmed his committment. If the coaches saw the need to sign another QB you have to think they would have at least brought one in for a visit. Right or wrong, I think this staff was content to ride with Russell.
As for McCray, if we really did back off, which I'm not sure I believe, I wholeheartedly disagree with that decision. Hell, I was hoping to at least sign another warm body that had any potential to develop into an OL down the road, much less a guy with other BCS offers.
As for McCray, if we really did back off, which I'm not sure I believe, I wholeheartedly disagree with that decision. Hell, I was hoping to at least sign another warm body that had any potential to develop into an OL down the road, much less a guy with other BCS offers.
article archived or something? Those guys were tripping over themselves to be the 4th person to post the entire passage from 2001.
this is ridiculous. i have to take up for steve here. most of his information proves true in the long run. he said all along that there was a great chance that we weren't in the race for patterson once he decommitted. some idiot fans wouldn't let it go though. every time it came up, he said we more than likely weren't getting it, but he was getting some mixed signals so maybe it wasn't COMPLETELY impossible. but he always said it was a huge longshot. the thing with cotton is overblown too. the way steve actually reported it was more along the lines of cotton was looking for a new school and msu was ONE that he was interested in. the coaching staff had always said that tyler was the only QB we were offering so they had to decide if they wanted to offer cotton (who was far from a sure thing if we offered) and just sticking with the one who had stuck with us. When they're almost the same caliber player, that's a no-brainer to me. would our staff love to have them both? obviously. But that wasn't happening, so they stuck with the one they knew they had. DUH. As for the rest, it all seems plausible to me. both sides can put their spin on it, but none of it really matters. he's just reporting from his point of view based on conversations he had with the kids and their families. if the SCUM fans want to cry about gray-shirt this and 4 WRs above Bumphis...blah blah blah...that's not his fault. And honestly, to me, offering gray shirts to skinner and others is a laugh. TSTTN's class really isn't that great to me. Yeah, they landed 2 or 3 great prospects, but after that it's a bunch of average guys. I'll take our class every time. I guess if we had signed 50 players though we would be ranked really high too. If they're so pleased with an *** load of 3 stars, then why would they try to knock our 3 stars? that's just childish to me.
Stop. Just stop.
With respect to rankings, Scout only counts the top 25 signees, and Rivals the top 20. So their oversigning doesn't really make a difference. 2 or 3 great prospects in the OM class? I'd love to have Patterson, Massie, Drummond, Tig, Tim Simon (that dude looked like a beast), that DT Shackleford, and maybe Ritter (yes the kicker).
And regarding Cotton, if it were my son, and he just decommitted from AU with one month to signing day, I'd be talking or "recruiting" every school that would listen in hopes to get as many scholarships for my son for him to choose.
In the end we both signed great classes, and 9 times out of 10, Steve is spot on and straight forward with info.
With respect to rankings, Scout only counts the top 25 signees, and Rivals the top 20. So their oversigning doesn't really make a difference. 2 or 3 great prospects in the OM class? I'd love to have Patterson, Massie, Drummond, Tig, Tim Simon (that dude looked like a beast), that DT Shackleford, and maybe Ritter (yes the kicker).
And regarding Cotton, if it were my son, and he just decommitted from AU with one month to signing day, I'd be talking or "recruiting" every school that would listen in hopes to get as many scholarships for my son for him to choose.
In the end we both signed great classes, and 9 times out of 10, Steve is spot on and straight forward with info.
markymark said:
So, why is offering grayshirts a laugh? For pretty much all of our borderline or non-qualifying guys, they understand that if they pull the miracle and qualify, they will have to wait a year to get their spot, because they weren't in as good of shape as the other guys on our list that have guaranteed offers. Guys like Houston, Phillips, McCray, Smiley, and Ferrell fit this category, and there is no reason why Skinner wouldn't be in that same boat. Ferrell is a LB, just like Skinner, and he's borderline on grades, just like Skinner, and he has a grayshirt offer if he manages to qualify. Couple that with the fact that we landed three LBs in the final week before signing day (Kight, Shackleford, and Marry) that all have their grades, and you can see that it would be highly likely that Skinner would've fallen in the same category as Ferrell.
I really don't see why it would matter either way. We apparently liked the guy a lot. We just didn't have room to offer immediate scholarships to guys that were borderline on academics, so it would make sense to me that Skinner would've gotten a grayshirt/sign and place offer. That's not a knock on the guy.
I think MSU landed a good class that will help a lot down the line, and I think we landed a good class that will help a lot down the line as well. You will probably put more of your class on the field immediately based on more immeidate need, but overall I think both schools (when you factor in grades of prospects) brought in possibly the best classes, respectively, that either school has landed since the reduction to 85 scholarships.
I agree. Acronyms suck as a rule, but I'll also add that any message board acronym that's longer than 3 letters sucks even more. It's like Arkansas fans using TCTWF for Nutt (The Coach That We Fired). That's too much, especially when the acronym is longer than other options.
TSTTN is longer than UM, or even scUM (oh so clever), plus TSTTN isn't even really an insult. It's more a statement of fact.
TSTTN is longer than UM, or even scUM (oh so clever), plus TSTTN isn't even really an insult. It's more a statement of fact.
I can also buy that we didn't pursue Cotton. Mullen said from day one that we were taking 1 QB. Now, If I'm not mistaken we did set up an official visit with Cotton until Russell reaffirmed his commitment. As soon as that happened, the coaches decided not to bring Cotton in. Now, do I think we could have beat Ole Miss for Cotton, if he was our only QB recruit? Probably, just from the aspect that we could offer early playing time. Ole Miss has Snead for 2 more years and on top of that, everyone seems to be pretty high on Stanley. What do we have at State? A 5'8" Senior and a 6'3" redshirt Soph. that has a better chance of transfering to J-State, than he does at Starting for Msu.
McCray? I think another OL was on Mullen and Co. list, until they saw how bad our skill players were. That's why we finished the class with 6 or maybe 7 (depending on where they put Hamilton, if he doesn't go to the Mlb) out of our last 8 on Wr's and Rb's. Our OL is really young. We will have 9 scholarship players on the OL that are redshirt Soph's or younger. Add to that, that next years OL class is suppose to be pretty strong and I can buy that we didn't pursue McCray.
H
hdghdawg
Guest
That's the issue. Why are you arguing that Rosebowl skews things when you're listening to the 100% wrong information that Yancy is telling you?
H
hdghdawg
Guest
where he said he did not want to take a player just to get a player, specifically offensive lineman
Mullen damn well better realize this isn't Fl where he has his 17ing pick of talent. Sometimes in this state, you gotta take a player to get a player that's worth a ****. Like us taking Dock to get Deljuan a few years ago. Thankfully Dock turned out to be a pretty good player, but we wouldn't have gotten Deljuan without him. A more recent example was signing Addison Lawrence a couple of years ago to get Cam Lawrence this year.
I believe Steve when it comes to the Cotton and McCrary stories. Last summer a bunch of State fans wanted Cotton to get an offer, but the offer never came. At the combine in Mobile during the summer Steve said Cotton was the only QB he had ever seen throw passes into the stands at a combine. He said he is a great athlete, but he didn't pass the ball well enough to play QB at the collegiate level. Supposedly Russell and McCarron looked much better at the combine. If Steve, had said this after y'all started recruiting him I wouldn't have believed it, but this was said long before y'all got involved with Cotton. Rosebowl could very well be wrong but he has never thought Cotton would be an SEC QB.
As far as McCrary goes the new staff never recruited him. Hell, Ole Miss almost dropped him as well. McCrary is a project and we weren't in a position to sign an OL who couldn't break into the rotation soon. We needed OL who could possibly play as freshmen or at least after a redshirt year and McCrary is a long term project.
As far as McCrary goes the new staff never recruited him. Hell, Ole Miss almost dropped him as well. McCrary is a project and we weren't in a position to sign an OL who couldn't break into the rotation soon. We needed OL who could possibly play as freshmen or at least after a redshirt year and McCrary is a long term project.
Someone initially posted that on NAFOOM. Then the article/comments were e-amiled to Neal McCready who posted them on Rivals with the tag line, "This is why you don't want a homer" (as a news writer). Now, I am aware that Steve is not nearly as bad as Gene or Yancy, so I would in no way imply that....but after reading that article, it sounds as though every kid you guys even considered (besides Patterson) was either all-MSU or only didn't go there b/c you didn't want him. That sounds very homerish considering you guys didn't have much of a season to recruit with. Granted, much of it is likely to be true, or at least a glass-half-full version of the truth. I have learned to temper everything Yancy says as he no doubt sees things from one perspective. This seems a lot like a piece he would write. FWIW, on Neal, he is very critical of Yancy and basically calls him a OM homer, talking about having journalistic integrety (with regard to articles, verifying information, not stalking recruits). He took a while to be accepted on the site since he wrote in the state of Alabama for so long, and most people thought he was a Bama homer. In the end, I don't really care who likes who at the recruiting services.....just participating in the banter.
When you work for or wih the gov't, TLA's make up a large percentage of your on-the-job (OTJ) lingo.
I believe him in that we either didn't want, or at least weren't willing to put much effort out on Cotton, McCray or Phillips. Those are the only 3 that he cast that light on in that writeup. That in NO way means there weren't plenty of players out there we did want who didn't want us. Steve just didn't get off into that subject much but he DID talk about Pat Patterson and Ricky Johnson both in terms that we were after them but they chose other options. I don't think it would be too difficult for Ole Miss to find 3 of our signees that they either didn't offer or didn't put much effort into recruiting them. Like I said, Rosebowl is definitely writing from the MSU take on these particular players but that doesn't make any of it untrue.