So if Rosebowl did as badly as everyone here believes...
- Thread starter TR.sixpack
- Start date
- Status
Steve actually does a very good job. He is constantly getting questions like "What are our chances with Wells?" and "Do we get Sanders?". He doesn't have the luxury of telling everyone "How the hell should I know? We're dealing with a bunch of 18 year old prima donnas.".
He answers questions with his honest opinion and he's usually right. All the guy can really do is call the recruits, coaches, and other Scout staffers and ask them the questions. If they lie to him or don't get solid information, then he just has to sort through the mess and offer an opinion....
He answers questions with his honest opinion and he's usually right. All the guy can really do is call the recruits, coaches, and other Scout staffers and ask them the questions. If they lie to him or don't get solid information, then he just has to sort through the mess and offer an opinion....
AdamDawgDude said:
Steve Robertson and Paul Jones are straight shooters who do their best to answer questions with the most reliable information they have. They don't make things up just to please their readers. Also, unlike some others similarly situated, they do not take jabs atother commentators nor do they demeanrival institutions. They are class individuals. I hate to see the harshly critical comments of some on this board directed at Steve Robertson. They are unmerited.
Well, except for that Rosebowl ****. <div>Chem70 said:
</div><div>And obviously you haven't been following along here.</div><div>
</div><div>Steve has been adamant about some of the **** lately. He was bad wrong.</div>
i think some of you miss the point... who cares if he was wrong? he distinguishes FACT from his prognostications. he doesnt say my predictions are going to be exactly right yada yada yada what is he a fortune teller? he gives us the fact and then we can draw our own conclusions. thats what i like though, some of his predictions may be right or wrong-he's not a fortune teller, but he gives the same facts that he hears so everyone else can draw their own conclusions as well. i think steve does a great job to be honest. i read that board a lot, i never post over there its brutal, but steve does a good job relaying what he hears and explaining his thoughts. he is the only reason to be a part of that board.
Adamant is not a word I would use to describe Steve. A few times I cringe when I hear stuff like "Wells is definitely ours" without seeing the commitment marked on any recruiting service. He doesn't do that often though. Usually he answers honestly and makes well informed guesses as to what a high schooler will do.olemissbydamn said:
For him to make a lot of wrong predictions, you'll have to compile a list that spans several years. He's usually very sharp and gives information that hurts sometimes. We had a day last week where the whole recruiting page was about to jump off of a building.
Please tell me what in the Hell is was bad wrong about?? I still cant figure out why everyone hammers this guy so bad... his info is pretty good. This is also why Scout made him a regionaltalent evaluator and not just some beat writer
if the roles were reversed, and Yancy was as wrong as Steve was this year, you guys would be hammering him calling him a liar and saying he just makes stuff up. When Steve does it, it's because he got bad info. Yancy never gets that benefit of the doubt from some of you. I am willing to admit that both of them get bad info.
Also, I remember many on here slamming Yancy for saying right before Christmas that we had two private commits, one which would announce right after Christmas and one that would announce on signing day. People were claiming he was just making it up, but he was talking about Martin and Sanders, and both were correct.
Also, I remember many on here slamming Yancy for saying right before Christmas that we had two private commits, one which would announce right after Christmas and one that would announce on signing day. People were claiming he was just making it up, but he was talking about Martin and Sanders, and both were correct.
What was Steve wrong about?
and
Martin and Sanders where really never a question for a lot of people, they have always been big OM leans especially Martin. So how is it that big of a call on Yancy's part??
and
Martin and Sanders where really never a question for a lot of people, they have always been big OM leans especially Martin. So how is it that big of a call on Yancy's part??
I'm just saying that if Yancy had said Thompson was 85% Ole Miss, and he'd have signed with State, many on here would say he was just lying to his masses. You wouldn't give him credit for just getting bad info.
Thompson (said he was 85% sure Thompson was headed to OM)
Sanders (on more than one occassion he picked him to go to MSU...until late when he found out he was wrong)
Giles
Cam Newton
Raijon Neal (I'm not 100% on this one, but I think some people here reamed him about Neal...could be wrong).
Brunetti
Sanders (on more than one occassion he picked him to go to MSU...until late when he found out he was wrong)
Giles
Cam Newton
Raijon Neal (I'm not 100% on this one, but I think some people here reamed him about Neal...could be wrong).
Brunetti
He said Thompson was coming to MSU(75%) UNTIL his information changedthen he informed the flock that things have changed... this was about 2 weeks before he committed, I believe
Sanders - he never said it was more than 50/50 so its hard to fault him there...
Giles - You got me on this one...</p>
Cam - EVERYONE thought this was done and Rosebowl said if he visits Auburn we are in trouble... after he did he said it looked like AU had the upper hand...</p>
Brunetti - After Barry committed to WVU he never again gave us better than a 40% chance...</p>
So far that means he was wrong about Giles and I guess I can give you partial credit for Thompson...So I guess he was wrong about 1 1/2 recruits! Man he 17'n sucks!!!</p>
Sanders - he never said it was more than 50/50 so its hard to fault him there...
Giles - You got me on this one...</p>
Cam - EVERYONE thought this was done and Rosebowl said if he visits Auburn we are in trouble... after he did he said it looked like AU had the upper hand...</p>
Brunetti - After Barry committed to WVU he never again gave us better than a 40% chance...</p>
So far that means he was wrong about Giles and I guess I can give you partial credit for Thompson...So I guess he was wrong about 1 1/2 recruits! Man he 17'n sucks!!!</p>
Yancy's story about Robinson was just amazing. I think that is the big difference between Steve and him.RebelBruiser said:
because of their writing styles(if that's what you call what yancy does).SR may get a few kids wrong here and there, but he doesn't make up quotes from them and go out of his way in articles to slam UM. He doesn't ask leading questions like "just why exactly do you hate MSU so much" (yes, i'm exaggerating....barely).If you can't see the difference between how the two approach their job, then you obviously made less than a 24 on the reading comprehension part of the ACT.RebelBruiser said:
Steve takes in a bunch of information andstates his opinion. He states it as his opinion and openly acknowledges the cases he doesn't have a good feel for. Does a Pat Patterson occasionly play him? Yes. Does he make sh*t up? No. Yancy sounds like a retarded 3rd grader on a rant 9 times out of 10.
A lot of people on here go out of their way to make fun of genespage because it makes them feel superior to their subscribers somehow (and make no mistakeabout it, gene and murrayare douches). It leads to a lot of cherry picking of steve's comments and he gets a bad rap by being associated with gene, murray, and evenyancy. the fact is, he is the only thing on that site worth following. if you keep up with him throughout therecruiting year, you have a good feeling for what's going on. You know which recruits are solid (for us or someone else), which onesare going to be battles, and you know which ones are just pure guesswork. i don't think he can do much better than that.
AdamDawgDude said:
I'll agree with that. He does come up with some good stories, whether they have truth to them or not, but when it comes to predictions and sources, I don't think either one has better information than the other.
That's fine. They key is how that information is presented. Do you just report the facts or do you take the facts and insert a bunch of filler when you don't have a complete story?RebelBruiser said:
I'm sure that both are guilty of the latter at times, but Steve is almost overly dry at times so that nothing can be read into the information that his is presenting. The only time he's really ever 'wrong' is when someone asks his opinion.
was wrong once on Humphrey and wrong on some guy I've never heard of. Is there more? Color me unimpressed if not.
- Status