Hey, did you ever take that trip to Iceland? If not, I hear it's beautiful there this time of year.

4 said:

---

Except that those very rankings have been indisputably directly correlated to success on the field.

---

Two of our most successful players the past 7 years were 3 star recruits......manziel and Evans. Also plenty of time for our 3 star recruits to rank up. Pretty sure Baylor Cupp was a 3 star when he committed before his sr season. Relax.....its early!!

And yet the team won squat because it lacked sufficient numbers of 4 and 5 star guys.

Smart Chibuzo is solid to A&M... supoosedly Aki likes our new OL coach. They have not met in person yet but they talk over the phone. I ain't scared...

4 said:

---

Hey, did you ever take that trip to Iceland? If not, I hear it's beautiful there this time of year.

---

I did. They have amazing food there, interestingly enough.

Aggiejackie said:

---

Smart Chibuzo is solid to A&M... supoosedly Aki likes our new OL coach. They have not met in person yet but they talk over the phone. I ain't scared...

---

Dis gud den?????

GoodAg Paulie said:

---

4 said:

---

Except that those very rankings have been indisputably directly correlated to success on the field.

---

Two of our most successful players the past 7 years were 3 star recruits......manziel and Evans. Also plenty of time for our 3 star recruits to rank up. Pretty sure Baylor Cupp was a 3 star when he committed before his sr season. Relax.....its early!!

---

None of this has anything to do with my statement. I can think of all kinds of 3 star players that ended up being good, doesn't change the validity of my point.

4 said:

---

GoodAg Paulie said:

---

4 said:

---

Except that those very rankings have been indisputably directly correlated to success on the field.

---

Two of our most successful players the past 7 years were 3 star recruits......manziel and Evans. Also plenty of time for our 3 star recruits to rank up. Pretty sure Baylor Cupp was a 3 star when he committed before his sr season. Relax.....its early!!

---

None of this has anything to do with my statement. I can think of all kinds of 3 star players that ended up being good, doesn't change the validity of my point.

---

I agree. 100%

It is early in the recruiting season but the guy we just lost was the best of our 4 OL commitments.
Fortunately, this is a good year in Texas for OL and there are many good ones out there that have not committed.
On a related note, the OL class in Texas for 2021 is shaping up to be the best ever in Texas with as many as 5 5 star linemen,

They are as follows:

Richard Fartheree 6'8" 300
Donovan Jackson 6'4 " 295
Bryce Foster 6'5" 315
Hayden Connor 6'6" 305
Tommy Brockemeyer 6'6" 285

And remember these guys will be high school juniors this coming season.
I think we have a good shot with the first 3 on this list.

I got to see Brockemeyer in a few games and have watched his camp highlights. He is probably the best tackle prospect I've seen since Jake Matthews. Strong, fast, and just got his drivers license.

Unfortunately almost 100% going sip...

amercer said:

---

The pundits are right.

---

Yeah, half the time

4 said:

---

Except that those very rankings have been indisputably directly correlated to success on the field.

---

I can point at just one team to prove you wrong

Bill Superman said:

---

4 said:

---

Except that those very rankings have been indisputably directly correlated to success on the field.

---

I can point at just one team to prove you wrong

---

Start with the successful teams and look at their recruiting rankings for the past few years, not the other way around. It's been quantified, it's not arguable.

A program can have highly ranked recruiting classes and not win, but a consistently winning program always has highly ranked classes.

4 said:

---

Bill Superman said:

---

4 said:

---

Except that those very rankings have been indisputably directly correlated to success on the field.

---

I can point at just one team to prove you wrong

---

Start with the successful teams and look at their recruiting rankings for the past few years, not the other way around. It's been quantified, it's not arguable.

A program can have highly ranked recruiting classes and not win, but a consistently winning program always has highly ranked classes.

---

So what you're saying is that a team that has a decent season then go ahead and inflate their next recruiting class rankings due to the likelihood of repeating success.

I assume you rely on the popular media outlets for your news as well

No. You are not grasping the point.

maybe someone else will try to explain it, at this point I'm not going to waste any more time if you don't already understand what I'm saying.

It's also a moot point. We hired a guy who always gets top 5 classes, and we just signed a top 5 class.

That's what we need to be successful, and there is no reason to think we won't get it,.

4 said:

---

No. You are not grasping the point.

maybe someone else will try to explain it, at this point I'm not going to waste any more time if you don't already understand what I'm saying.

---

You're time has been wasted being a sheep your whole life

Folks like you will never get it

Bill Superman said:

---

4 said:

---

No. You are not grasping the point.

maybe someone else will try to explain it, at this point I'm not going to waste any more time if you don't already understand what I'm saying.

---

You're time has been wasted being a sheep your whole life

Folks like you will never get it

---

This sounds like an argument/insult from flat-earther people

AggieTravis12 said:

---

Bill Superman said:

---

4 said:

---

No. You are not grasping the point.

maybe someone else will try to explain it, at this point I'm not going to waste any more time if you don't already understand what I'm saying.

---

You're time has been wasted being a sheep your whole life

Folks like you will never get it

---

This sounds like an argument/insult from flat-earther people

---

This sounds like a weak stereotype from a taker type.

But you're right, ignorance is bliss.

4 said:

---

Bill Superman said:

---

4 said:

---

Except that those very rankings have been indisputably directly correlated to success on the field.

---

I can point at just one team to prove you wrong

---

Start with the successful teams and look at their recruiting rankings for the past few years, not the other way around. It's been quantified, it's not arguable.

A program can have highly ranked recruiting classes and not win, but a consistently winning program always has highly ranked classes.

---

There are exceptions to this rule.

Coaches that have the ability to coach up an athlete can get good results without great recruiting classes. Dabo Sweeney's last 5 recruiting classes have been ranked

10
7
16
11
9

I believe his finishes in that time frame have not been outside the top 5 each year with two national titles.

Now I know you will probably say they are the exception not the rule, however the same can be said for a few teams not just Clemson. TCU, NCSU, BYU, MSU, Tech tards, Missouri and KSU are all schools that are known for doing more with less.

Kill Switch said:

---

4 said:

---

Bill Superman said:

---

4 said:

---

Except that those very rankings have been indisputably directly correlated to success on the field.

---

I can point at just one team to prove you wrong

---

Start with the successful teams and look at their recruiting rankings for the past few years, not the other way around. It's been quantified, it's not arguable.

A program can have highly ranked recruiting classes and not win, but a consistently winning program always has highly ranked classes.

---

There are exceptions to this rule.

Coaches that have the ability to coach up an athlete can get good results without great recruiting classes. Dabo Sweeney's last 5 recruiting classes have been ranked

10
7
16
11
9

I believe his finishes in that time frame have not been outside the top 5 each year with two national titles.

Now I know you will probably say they are the exception not the rule, however the same can be said for a few teams not just Clemson. TCU, NCSU, BYU, MSU, Tech tards, Missouri and KSU are all schools that are known for doing more with less.

---

Don't be fooled by the rankings of Clemson's classes. They have partly been ranked lower than reality due to most being fairly small in size. If you look at their average player rating, they come out much better in quality. Their worst class (#16) had an average player rating of 92.10.
Either way, they pretty much average a Top 10 class regardless of numbers.

The thing Clemson has done is develop players and get them to stick around (hence the smaller classes) so that they usually have experience and continuity across the position groups. Couple this with their outstanding coaching and you have them performing "slightly" above their talent level (Top 5 vs Top 10). The other thing Dabo has achieved through building their program is consistency. He not making the playoffs one year and then finishing barely in the Top 25 the next. He is maintaining Top 5 seasons.

Emilio Fantastico said:

---

Kill Switch said:

---

4 said:

---

Bill Superman said:

---

4 said:

---

Except that those very rankings have been indisputably directly correlated to success on the field.

---

I can point at just one team to prove you wrong

---

Start with the successful teams and look at their recruiting rankings for the past few years, not the other way around. It's been quantified, it's not arguable.

A program can have highly ranked recruiting classes and not win, but a consistently winning program always has highly ranked classes.

---

There are exceptions to this rule.

Coaches that have the ability to coach up an athlete can get good results without great recruiting classes. Dabo Sweeney's last 5 recruiting classes have been ranked

10
7
16
11
9

I believe his finishes in that time frame have not been outside the top 5 each year with two national titles.

Now I know you will probably say they are the exception not the rule, however the same can be said for a few teams not just Clemson. TCU, NCSU, BYU, MSU, Tech tards, Missouri and KSU are all schools that are known for doing more with less.

---

Don't be fooled by the rankings of Clemson's classes. They have partly been ranked lower than reality due to most being fairly small in size. If you look at their average player rating, they come out much better in quality. Their worst class (#16) had an average player rating of 92.10.
Either way, they pretty much average a Top 10 class regardless of numbers.

The thing Clemson has done is develop players and get them to stick around (hence the smaller classes) so that they usually have experience and continuity across the position groups. Couple this with their outstanding coaching and you have them performing "slightly" above their talent level (Top 5 vs Top 10). The other thing Dabo has achieved through building their program is consistency. He not making the playoffs one year and then finishing barely in the Top 25 the next. He is maintaining Top 5 seasons.

---

Being able to coach up a player is the reason he is able to get the most out of his players.

Class size is irrelevant when you are looking at a 5 year cycle, the key is that in those 5 years they also took 44 3'star athletes which is about 50% of their roster for last year. They have some good players, this we know, but they are just like us, they have players who require development. It's that development that separates them from everyone else.

4 said:

---

Charlie Conway said:

---

You remind me of somebody

---

You're probably thinking of Gene Gene the Dancing Machine from The Gong show.

---

Bill Superman said:

---

4 said:

---

Except that those very rankings have been indisputably directly correlated to success on the field.

---

I can point at just one team to prove you wrong

---

Ahaha very good point.