Yeah I'm the fag, but you "guys" don't have problems with sucking the cocks of teenagers who haven't played college football yet or with loving the Seahawks and Macklemore.
Just because you suck cock doesn't make you a fag, fag!
I guess I'm just amused by the irony of making such fag jokes in a thread about the rumored size of our recruits' penises. I'll give you guys a hint. Bigger than your half flaccid excuses for pricks. Now when does EURO 2016 start? Where my Pats at?
As they say in the bidnezz, did anyone catch the article today discussing how jordan and pippen used to compare/compete on everything, including cack size? This would even reach to their sons. Ho-grant, jordan and pippen would apparently discuss who had the largest potential.
Yes, in fact I found it while I was doing by daily google search of famous black cock size news. It explained a lot about Pippen being cool with the sidekick role. I guess dude was hung and it made MJ jealous when Madonna told him to fuck off because he couldn't do it like Scottie could. My favorite excerpt I saw was the one where MJ told Mugsy to "shoot it you fucking midget", let him shoot and it was a brick. Reminded me of Kim Grinolds. Actually the whole thing about 17 year old recruit dongs reminds me of Kim. That faggot.
Yeah I'm the fag, but you "guys" don't have problems with sucking the cocks of teenagers who haven't played college football yet or with loving the Seahawks and Macklemore.
TBS'ing to college football is akin to the Draft is to the NFL ... neither assures you of having a great team going forward ... but having a good recruiting class or draft is a leading indicator of potential success going forward.
Yeah I'm the fag, but you "guys" don't have problems with sucking the cocks of teenagers who haven't played college football yet or with loving the Seahawks and Macklemore.
TBS'ing to college football is akin to the Draft is to the NFL ... neither assures you of having a great team going forward ... but having a good recruiting class or draft is a leading indicator of potential success going forward.
I'm nearing another blackout, but a Captain Obvious gif seems appropriate here.
Yeah I'm the fag, but you "guys" don't have problems with sucking the cocks of teenagers who haven't played college football yet or with loving the Seahawks and Macklemore.
TBS'ing to college football is akin to the Draft is to the NFL ... neither assures you of having a great team going forward ... but having a good recruiting class or draft is a leading indicator of potential success going forward.
How would you know if you have a good class? Do you know how they will play in 4 years? Seems like a shitty indicator.
And it means even less in college, because so much is dependent on coaching and the jump from high school to college ball is a bigger leap than college to NFL.
In closing, none of it is indicative of anything. I think what you meant to say was that it doesn't matter but you think it matters because it gives you hope or something. The fact is that these highlight videos and offer sheets don't tell us a damn thing until you see it on the field against real competition. Being a "leading indicator" for "potential success" is your way of equivocating to us that it means jack fucking shit while trying to argue that it does.
Extrapolating from the HS to College level is definitely more difficult than College to Professional level.
That being said, there are some very strong HS football leagues across the nation and if you are seeing kids from those leagues, there's a strong reason to believe that those that perform well at that level will perform well going forward.
With HS kids, what you are looking for is a combination of natural athletic ability as well as an ability to further develop.
Regarding player development, some coaches are better than others. Pete has a very strong record of player development at both Boise and UW. It's one reason why I never worry too much about TCU recruiting because Patterson's track record at player development is one of the best in the nation. No question this matters as much as anything else. IMO though, the better the base level that the coaches start with, the better the upside IMO.
Extrapolating from the HS to College level is definitely more difficult than College to Professional level.
That being said, there are some very strong HS football leagues across the nation and if you are seeing kids from those leagues, there's a strong reason to believe that those that perform well at that level will perform well going forward.
With HS kids, what you are looking for is a combination of natural athletic ability as well as an ability to further develop.
Regarding player development, some coaches are better than others. Pete has a very strong record of player development at both Boise and UW. It's one reason why I never worry too much about TCU recruiting because Patterson's track record at player development is one of the best in the nation. No question this matters as much as anything else. IMO though, the better the base level that the coaches start with, the better the upside IMO.
I don't even know what to say to this post.
So recruiting is important because it's a potential indicator of future implied success? But then you go on to argue that you don't worry about it if you have a good coach because player development is more important. Sounds like you are arguing against your own point.
I can take a look at the head coach and tell you if they have a good class or not without knowing anything about who he recruited. A good recruiting class doesn't predict future success, a good coach wins games and that means he did his job recruiting and developing players.
Yeah I'm the fag, but you "guys" don't have problems with sucking the cocks of teenagers who haven't played college football yet or with loving the Seahawks and Macklemore.
TBS'ing to college football is akin to the Draft is to the NFL ... neither assures you of having a great team going forward ... but having a good recruiting class or draft is a leading indicator of potential success going forward.
Comments
wowza
#bringbacksigs
Asking for a friend
And it means even less in college, because so much is dependent on coaching and the jump from high school to college ball is a bigger leap than college to NFL.
In closing, none of it is indicative of anything. I think what you meant to say was that it doesn't matter but you think it matters because it gives you hope or something. The fact is that these highlight videos and offer sheets don't tell us a damn thing until you see it on the field against real competition. Being a "leading indicator" for "potential success" is your way of equivocating to us that it means jack fucking shit while trying to argue that it does.
That being said, there are some very strong HS football leagues across the nation and if you are seeing kids from those leagues, there's a strong reason to believe that those that perform well at that level will perform well going forward.
With HS kids, what you are looking for is a combination of natural athletic ability as well as an ability to further develop.
Regarding player development, some coaches are better than others. Pete has a very strong record of player development at both Boise and UW. It's one reason why I never worry too much about TCU recruiting because Patterson's track record at player development is one of the best in the nation. No question this matters as much as anything else. IMO though, the better the base level that the coaches start with, the better the upside IMO.
So recruiting is important because it's a potential indicator of future implied success? But then you go on to argue that you don't worry about it if you have a good coach because player development is more important. Sounds like you are arguing against your own point.
I can take a look at the head coach and tell you if they have a good class or not without knowing anything about who he recruited. A good recruiting class doesn't predict future success, a good coach wins games and that means he did his job recruiting and developing players.