Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Dawgnews is a retard/ doesn't understand how football works (Paging Auburn)
bananasnblondes
Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 15,669 
So it appears Auburndawg wasn't courteous enough to give Fleenor a reach around and now Fleenor has a major sandy vagina and has called out Auburn in 3 different threads about the ENORMOUS talent gap between UW and Oregon/UCLA/SC. Auburn suggested the talent gap wasn't as significant and that coaching of players was the important factor.
He used this crap as his evidence
USC - 4.00 (3.68 for backups)
UCLA - 3.77 (3.57 for backups)
Oregon - 3.68 (3.41 for backups)
Stanford - 3.55 (3.58 for backups) and clearly the most experienced team.
UW - 3.09 (3.12 for backups)
ASU - 3.00 (3.06 for backups)
WSU - 2.64 (2.71 for backups)
So obviously those numbers after the team names are highly researched production metrics for each individual position, right?
Nope, they're high school recruiting stars.
What Fleenor and the rest of the teen boy lovers completely disregard is that you don't rate college players' production by the rating that Biggins and Huffman gave them as 16 year olds. Coleman Shelton, Feeney, Tanigawa, Evan Hudson, DiAnndre Campbell, and Atoe are all bringing doen UWs rating because they were 2 star recruits but were good enough to start over 3-star guys. Three of those guys have been starting since they were RS Freshmen. Somebody even pointed out that substituting Riva in at RT and Ross at WR moves the number from 3.09 to 3.29.
Other players bringing down UWs rating include Danny Shelton (likely the best NT in the Pac-12), Marcus Peters (likely all Pac-12 at CB), and Kikaha (one of the top rushers in the PAC). All those guys are middle of the road talent according to Fleenor's system of rating players because they were 3-star high school players.
While there are some definite deficiencies at positions like OL due to Sark's shitty recruiting at those positions, Fleenor is using some fucking retarded logic here and keeps posting shit about it because he is so proud of himself and his research. The rest of the posters over there are too dumb to see this. Instead they are polishing Fleenor's knob and posting shit like "I never realized how far we are behind Stanford and Pete's lousy recruiting is putting us even further back (another myth that has been proven fucking wrong)"
He used this crap as his evidence
USC - 4.00 (3.68 for backups)
UCLA - 3.77 (3.57 for backups)
Oregon - 3.68 (3.41 for backups)
Stanford - 3.55 (3.58 for backups) and clearly the most experienced team.
UW - 3.09 (3.12 for backups)
ASU - 3.00 (3.06 for backups)
WSU - 2.64 (2.71 for backups)
So obviously those numbers after the team names are highly researched production metrics for each individual position, right?
Nope, they're high school recruiting stars.
What Fleenor and the rest of the teen boy lovers completely disregard is that you don't rate college players' production by the rating that Biggins and Huffman gave them as 16 year olds. Coleman Shelton, Feeney, Tanigawa, Evan Hudson, DiAnndre Campbell, and Atoe are all bringing doen UWs rating because they were 2 star recruits but were good enough to start over 3-star guys. Three of those guys have been starting since they were RS Freshmen. Somebody even pointed out that substituting Riva in at RT and Ross at WR moves the number from 3.09 to 3.29.
Other players bringing down UWs rating include Danny Shelton (likely the best NT in the Pac-12), Marcus Peters (likely all Pac-12 at CB), and Kikaha (one of the top rushers in the PAC). All those guys are middle of the road talent according to Fleenor's system of rating players because they were 3-star high school players.
While there are some definite deficiencies at positions like OL due to Sark's shitty recruiting at those positions, Fleenor is using some fucking retarded logic here and keeps posting shit about it because he is so proud of himself and his research. The rest of the posters over there are too dumb to see this. Instead they are polishing Fleenor's knob and posting shit like "I never realized how far we are behind Stanford and Pete's lousy recruiting is putting us even further back (another myth that has been proven fucking wrong)"
Comments
-
But i thought Sark was a great recruiter?
-
Fuck Fleenor, that fuck can't breathe with out his little machine he carries around with him all the time
-
Once you're awarded a star rating by Scout, that's how you'll be judged for the rest of your life.
A 4* true freshman QB will always be better than a 3* RS-Senior QB. -
I might have wrote 'but Sark was a great recruiter, everyone says so' on that thread. I say might because that post no longer exists. #HiKimRaceBannon said:But i thought Sark was a great recruiter?
-
Fucking retard fight of the century: Auburn vs Bleenor. There's not even any comedy value to be had.
I've tried to explain the meaninglessness of star ratings, once you're evaluating a roster of actual players who have actually played, to Auburn at least a dozen times. He just ignored me. He'd respond to every other person in the thread but me. -
Only missing sinceredawg and sunnyand85 to fill up the shortbus for that thread.
Section14aFS gets an honorable shortbus mention but he's been the voice of reason lately. He's moved up the Doogman power rankings for 2014. -
sinceredawg is the motherfucking stupidest person to ever post on a message board.
-
Section14FS is now the voice of reason? Now I've heard it all...
-
-
It's not hard to move up the doogman power rankings in 2014 ... all you have to do to do that is be smarter than flip flopping Aubbie, Butler Cabin's lack of neck, the LPT, and Kim's aliases (I mean friends) ...
