Oh how far we've come from the Slytanic
- Thread starter bsquared24
- Start date
S
Sauron
Guest
how many people over here gave Doc Hell, but he is one of the main reasons why we are where we are, now. If painting our campus pink and killing flowers meant getting rid of LT (and subsequently crooms), I would be on that all day.
a great job, in terms of the academics of the university and general administration, the man was a nightmare.
but was a horrible day-to-day leader in a University setting. Most people don't know the stupid/crazy **** he did everyday. I'm glad he's gone but I'm even more glad he was here. He did exactly what we needed, cleaned house and then left just at the right moment for us to get a good day-to-day leader.
but I seem to remember a great deal of threads during his tenure started by people who were bitching about airplanes, painting, flowers, his band, etc. As it relates to sports and the sports message board, I didn't care about any of that ****. I just wanted lt and crooms gone.
this is the first class by Mullen that has been ranked higher than Croom's final 3 classes . . and it comes on the heels of two worse teams in Ole Miss history . . .and we are saying oh how far we've come since Sly? Give me a break. Results are found on the field, and if there is anything that the past two years have shown, it is that Croom and his staff were very good talent evaluators, as they have landed numerous players in the NFL, and more Croom recruits are heading that way. Titus, Chaney, Dixon, Love, McPhee, Sherrod, White, Wright, and soon Cox and others to name a few, and more NFL Croom recruits are still on campus. Now, quick, tell me what Mullen recruits from the past two classes is headed for the NFL? Anyone feel very confident that any of those guys are going to the NFL?Which one?
People are delusional about this stuff. Let's not be like Ole Miss fans celebrating the mythical recruiting championship in the state of MS. Even looking at the rankings, we are only so high on Scout because we have so many losses this year and are signing 26 (with JUCO's). The average star ranking for our recruits 3.12 on Scout. That would place us only ahead of Arkansas (3.09), Kentucky, Vandy, and Ole Miss as to average quality of player. We are behind everyone else in the SEC. By the same average player metric by Rivals, we are ahead of only Arkansas, Ole Miss, and Kentucky. The only difference is that Vandy moves ahead of us on Rivals and on ESPN. 247 thinks we are better than those teams, plus adds Missouri. Again, we signed 28 players and Missouri only 19. ESPN similarly has us down with Kentucky, Ole Miss and Arkansas, but has Missouri and Vandy ahead of us.
In reality, all of the rankings are pretty similar. Scout thinks two of our players are five star worthy while the others don't. I actually think Scout is the best in MS. Our average quality of player puts us between 9th and 12th in the SEC. We signed more so we moved higher on the Scout rankings.
Ole Miss fans should be very familar with this method. It is how Orgeron and Nutt had their mythical recruiting championships, signing 35 players when Croom and Mullen signed 25, and Scout counted the highest 25.
All of that said - this was a good class for MSU and Mullen. It appears to have some real defensive studs and you win with defense, as MSU proved over and over again this year. Hopefully it will be as good as it looks, but let's keep it realistic here.
People are delusional about this stuff. Let's not be like Ole Miss fans celebrating the mythical recruiting championship in the state of MS. Even looking at the rankings, we are only so high on Scout because we have so many losses this year and are signing 26 (with JUCO's). The average star ranking for our recruits 3.12 on Scout. That would place us only ahead of Arkansas (3.09), Kentucky, Vandy, and Ole Miss as to average quality of player. We are behind everyone else in the SEC. By the same average player metric by Rivals, we are ahead of only Arkansas, Ole Miss, and Kentucky. The only difference is that Vandy moves ahead of us on Rivals and on ESPN. 247 thinks we are better than those teams, plus adds Missouri. Again, we signed 28 players and Missouri only 19. ESPN similarly has us down with Kentucky, Ole Miss and Arkansas, but has Missouri and Vandy ahead of us.
In reality, all of the rankings are pretty similar. Scout thinks two of our players are five star worthy while the others don't. I actually think Scout is the best in MS. Our average quality of player puts us between 9th and 12th in the SEC. We signed more so we moved higher on the Scout rankings.
Ole Miss fans should be very familar with this method. It is how Orgeron and Nutt had their mythical recruiting championships, signing 35 players when Croom and Mullen signed 25, and Scout counted the highest 25.
All of that said - this was a good class for MSU and Mullen. It appears to have some real defensive studs and you win with defense, as MSU proved over and over again this year. Hopefully it will be as good as it looks, but let's keep it realistic here.
<span style="font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">"Now, quick, tell me what Mullen recruits from the past two classes is headed for the NFL? Anyone feel very confident that any of those guys are going to the NFL?Which one"</span><div><span style="font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">
</span></div><div><font face="Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 12px;">
</span></font></div><div><font face="Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 12px;">that Vick Ballard guy - remember him? You know, the one that couldnt replace Anthony Dixon</span></font></div><div><font face="Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 12px;">
</span></font></div><div><font face="Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 12px;">I'd wait before acting like Mullen hasnt recruited some good players</span></font></div>
</span></div><div><font face="Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 12px;">
</span></font></div><div><font face="Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 12px;">that Vick Ballard guy - remember him? You know, the one that couldnt replace Anthony Dixon</span></font></div><div><font face="Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 12px;">
</span></font></div><div><font face="Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 12px;">I'd wait before acting like Mullen hasnt recruited some good players</span></font></div>
Did you really just say that? Do you realize how bad the 2008 class was? I don't care about stars or ratings - just on field production. The 2010 class will give us much more production over the next few years than the 2008 class ever dreamed of. Ballard, Carmon, Wells, Day, Griffin, Eulls, Malcom Johnson, Carr, Lewis --- those guys probably haveas muchplaying time in two years than the 2008 classgot in 4 years.digdawg said:
I don't care what it looked like on paper - 08 was bad. I think 2010 was more in line with 07 (Crooms best - I don't count 09 as belonging to Croom or Mullen). And even though it's early, I think the 2011 class will be similar to the 05 & 06 classes.
And the Dixon that was highly rated out of high school but overweight and out of shape under Crooms? The McPhee actually signed by Mullen? The White actually signed by Mullen? The Cox actually signed by Mullen? It's nice that Crooms left Mullen in a good spot to finish up that class, but it's not like Mullen didn't have to convince several recruits that he wouldn't coach the Slytanic 2.0.digdawg said:
As far as which recruits from the past two classes that will go to the NFL, it's kind of hard to project which of our upcoming redshirt sophomores will be NFL bound (remember that Sherrod didn't exactly look like an NFL caliber talent after his second season), but I would guess Vick Ballard will get a shot out of the 2010 class.
