Richard "Fig" Newton, 3* 2018 RB, Palmdale, CA (COMMITTED)
Comments
-
I get the Mathias Wilson point, and it's valid. However, I would wager that most RB's that end up being good in college, dominate at the high school level.Dennis_DeYoung said:
Are you fucking stupid? HS stats mean absolutely fucking nothing. Any rational person who has any fucking clue knows not to look at HS ypc. For fuck's sake.bananasnblondes said:Re: Newton vs. Brown, someone dug up their stats for the season thus far. Brown is averaging just above 4 yards a carry (with no TDs) and Newton is at 7.5.
So there's a mantra from the mods of this site that high school stats mean very little. However, any rational person can look at Brown's stats and have questions about why scout has him as the top RB in the west. High D-1 RB prospects dominate in high school in almost all cases. Newton is doing a little better but he's only getting single digit carries in each game, which raises questions as well.
The answer: beat the shit out of Oregon, then full court press on Tre'Shawn
You would've fucking loved Matthias Wilson!!!
Tyler Ebell!!
Fuck off with this shit.
Also, get Tre'Shaun. -
All college football players fucking dominated high school caz they are more genetically gifted.RoadDawg55 said:
I get the Mathias Wilson point, and it's valid. However, I would wager that most RB's that end up being good in college, dominate at the high school level.Dennis_DeYoung said:
Are you fucking stupid? HS stats mean absolutely fucking nothing. Any rational person who has any fucking clue knows not to look at HS ypc. For fuck's sake.bananasnblondes said:Re: Newton vs. Brown, someone dug up their stats for the season thus far. Brown is averaging just above 4 yards a carry (with no TDs) and Newton is at 7.5.
So there's a mantra from the mods of this site that high school stats mean very little. However, any rational person can look at Brown's stats and have questions about why scout has him as the top RB in the west. High D-1 RB prospects dominate in high school in almost all cases. Newton is doing a little better but he's only getting single digit carries in each game, which raises questions as well.
The answer: beat the shit out of Oregon, then full court press on Tre'Shawn
You would've fucking loved Matthias Wilson!!!
Tyler Ebell!!
Fuck off with this shit.
Also, get Tre'Shaun. -
Lots of twisting going on here. I never suggested that spectacular high school stats should warrant an offer, or are anywhere near the only/first thing you look at. However, to say they are completely meaningless is fucking stupid. As @RoadDawg55 pointed out, top flight college running backs usually absolutely dominate in their high school games. Unless his team is losing all their games by 50 (which they arent), or throwing 70 times a game (which they aren't), a kid ranked as the top RB in the west (and someone UW offered) should be putting up more than 4 yards a carry in his high school games.Dennis_DeYoung said:
Are you fucking stupid? HS stats mean absolutely fucking nothing. Any rational person who has any fucking clue knows not to look at HS ypc. For fuck's sake.bananasnblondes said:Re: Newton vs. Brown, someone dug up their stats for the season thus far. Brown is averaging just above 4 yards a carry (with no TDs) and Newton is at 7.5.
So there's a mantra from the mods of this site that high school stats mean very little. However, any rational person can look at Brown's stats and have questions about why scout has him as the top RB in the west. High D-1 RB prospects dominate in high school in almost all cases. Newton is doing a little better but he's only getting single digit carries in each game, which raises questions as well.
The answer: beat the shit out of Oregon, then full court press on Tre'Shawn
You would've fucking loved Matthias Wilson!!!
Tyler Ebell!!
Fuck off with this shit.
Also, get Tre'Shaun. -
Agree, but he wasn't that good anyways before we knew his stats, he's just meh.bananasnblondes said:
Lots of twisting going on here. I never suggested that spectacular high school stats should warrant an offer, or are anywhere near the only/first thing you look at. However, to say they are completely meaningless is fucking stupid. As @RoadDawg55 pointed out, top flight college running backs usually absolutely dominate in their high school games. Unless his team is losing all their games by 50 (which they arent), or throwing 70 times a game (which they aren't), a kid ranked as the top RB in the west (and someone UW offered) should be putting up more than 4 yards a carry in his high school games. -
I agree with this. Which was my original point.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:
Agree, but he wasn't that good anyways before we knew his stats, he's just meh.bananasnblondes said:
Lots of twisting going on here. I never suggested that spectacular high school stats should warrant an offer, or are anywhere near the only/first thing you look at. However, to say they are completely meaningless is fucking stupid. As @RoadDawg55 pointed out, top flight college running backs usually absolutely dominate in their high school games. Unless his team is losing all their games by 50 (which they arent), or throwing 70 times a game (which they aren't), a kid ranked as the top RB in the west (and someone UW offered) should be putting up more than 4 yards a carry in his high school games. -
I agree with you.bananasnblondes said:
I agree with this. Which was my original point.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:
Agree, but he wasn't that good anyways before we knew his stats, he's just meh.bananasnblondes said:
Lots of twisting going on here. I never suggested that spectacular high school stats should warrant an offer, or are anywhere near the only/first thing you look at. However, to say they are completely meaningless is fucking stupid. As @RoadDawg55 pointed out, top flight college running backs usually absolutely dominate in their high school games. Unless his team is losing all their games by 50 (which they arent), or throwing 70 times a game (which they aren't), a kid ranked as the top RB in the west (and someone UW offered) should be putting up more than 4 yards a carry in his high school games. -
The issue isn't that he's overrated as the #1 RB in the West, the issue is that the West RB's suck ass this year.bananasnblondes said:
Lots of twisting going on here. I never suggested that spectacular high school stats should warrant an offer, or are anywhere near the only/first thing you look at. However, to say they are completely meaningless is fucking stupid. As @RoadDawg55 pointed out, top flight college running backs usually absolutely dominate in their high school games. Unless his team is losing all their games by 50 (which they arent), or throwing 70 times a game (which they aren't), a kid ranked as the top RB in the west (and someone UW offered) should be putting up more than 4 yards a carry in his high school games.Dennis_DeYoung said:
Are you fucking stupid? HS stats mean absolutely fucking nothing. Any rational person who has any fucking clue knows not to look at HS ypc. For fuck's sake.bananasnblondes said:Re: Newton vs. Brown, someone dug up their stats for the season thus far. Brown is averaging just above 4 yards a carry (with no TDs) and Newton is at 7.5.
So there's a mantra from the mods of this site that high school stats mean very little. However, any rational person can look at Brown's stats and have questions about why scout has him as the top RB in the west. High D-1 RB prospects dominate in high school in almost all cases. Newton is doing a little better but he's only getting single digit carries in each game, which raises questions as well.
The answer: beat the shit out of Oregon, then full court press on Tre'Shawn
You would've fucking loved Matthias Wilson!!!
Tyler Ebell!!
Fuck off with this shit.
Also, get Tre'Shaun.
Whoever they put at #1 would be unworthy of being #1.
Tallest midget, Sark greater than Ty, fucking dreckfest, etc -
Can I go full Doog here for a second? (Actually, a quick admission: I could never really figure out the extent of what being a doog means. Trusting the coaches? LIPO? Being okay with failure? Anyway...)
I trust Petersen to evaluate players. I mean, yeah, maybe we've taken some filler and settled for mediocre players to some extent, but overall I think he's probably the best in the business.
Here are some numbers I came up with looking at his Boise success. First class included two 1st rounders, a 2nd, and a 3rd. Amazing. Started 2007, left 2013. So give him a couple of years to coach his guys and that of his immediate predecessor. From 2010-2014, Petersen had six guys drafted in the 1st or 2nd round. Same time period, UCLA also had six guys so drafted. Difference? In all of Petersen's Boise recruiting classes, ONE non-JC four-star recruit (two 4-star JCs). Same time period, UCLA had 44, including SIX (!) 5-star recruits. Same number of high draft picks.
USC in that same timeframe? 7 guys in first two rounds. With probably even more being 4-star or higher recruits.
Pete knows what he's doing. -
"doog" has been so bastardized here it has lost almost all of its meaning. I wouldn't waste time overthinking it. Dennis defines it here:
https://forum.hardcorehusky.com/discussion/39119/how-would-you-define-doog/p1
"Lower standards to avoid disappointment. At all costs."
Boobs would define it as someone who cared more about Oregon losing than UW winning, although he himself violates this and labels people doogs for a variety of reasons (e.g., hypotheticals about injuries, recruits, etc 'doogs hate facts')
Haie angrily just uses it to describe people he doesn't like or who disagree with him.
Derek as far as I know has never used the word on here. Race uses it sparingly.
At the risk of sucking my own dick, that doog thread should be classics. -
My definition is the correct one.Gladstone said:"doog" has been so bastardized here it has lost almost all of its meaning. I wouldn't waste time overthinking it. Dennis defines it here:
https://forum.hardcorehusky.com/discussion/39119/how-would-you-define-doog/p1
"Lower standards to avoid disappointment. At all costs."
Boobs would define it as someone who cared more about Oregon losing than UW winning, although he himself violates this and labels people doogs for a variety of reasons (e.g., hypotheticals about injuries, recruits, etc 'doogs hate facts')
Haie angrily just uses it to describe people he doesn't like or who disagree with him.
Derek as far as I know has never used the word on here. Race uses it sparingly.
At the risk of sucking my own dick, that doog thread should be classics.
