The delusion.

PeekingDuck said:

---

Because you're looking at a goofy in/out metric when all of those guys weren't necessarily going to start or garner much playing time. In absolute strength of class, LSU and Texas are #1 and #2. All the wishful thinking in the world ain't gonna help us on the field. We're either all in or we're not. At this point it seems like we're content being an also ran. That's fine, but we seem to have this delusion that we're all in which is odd.

---

Because Indiana, Miami, Georgia, Oregon, Ole Miss..none of which were #1 in this years portal..so suck it

The good news is that the proof will be on the field next year. One of us will be right.

PeekingDuck said:

---

The good news is that the proof will be on the field next year. One of us will be right.

---

I want to take this up a notch..How much? There isn't an amount that I wouldn't be willing to bet you..so name it

PeekingDuck said:

---

The delusion.

---

I know. Maybe one day you'll change but doubt it

Jimbo4win said:

---

PeekingDuck said:

---

The good news is that the proof will be on the field next year. One of us will be right.

---

I want to take this up a notch..How much? There isn't an amount that I wouldn't be willing to bet you..so name it

---

What are you betting exactly? That we win the national championship? Because I'll take that bet

carl spacklers hat said:

---

levytrousersEOY said:

---

carl spacklers hat said:

---

mjhhawk said:

---

levytrousersEOY said:

---

vander54 said:

---

Probably not much different than most top school outside maybe tu and a couple others.

---

I don't understand this rationale at all.
It's a position of need and a day one starter… why wouldn't you break the bank to make it happen? What's the point of having all this $ if you're not going to use it?

---

When you break the bank for one player it causes dissension in the locker room and a group of individuals who start to prioritize themselves and getting theirs over the team. See our 2022 recruiting class for an example of this. When you spend wisely on positions of need and the entire team works as a unit you get teams such as this year's Indiana.

---

Someone gets it. This is likely why A&M didn't push all-in on Coleman, too, preferring someone like Horton who wasn't primarily focused on how much money he could make. People seem to forget you have an entire locker room you're responsible to.

---

Just curious, but how do you know Horton wasnt focused solely on money? How do you know Coleman was (I doubt Tech got outbid)?
It seems many here think players who sign with Elko are doing it because they love the Ags and players who sign elsewhere are only chasing dollars.

---

How many visits did Horton take after visiting A&M? Now compare that to Coleman, who, by all rational appearances, was chasing the biggest bag he could get. You can play goalie for the sips all you want but by all appearances, Horton was looking for fit while Coleman was looking for money. Give me the fit guy all day, every day.

---

Kc was for sure looking for money last year and that worked out good for us. Maybe the kid at Auburn got more but I bet he was the highest paid wr in portal last year. Just because we want to believe it's not a money thing 95% time it's a money thing. Bama and Georgia will never get a top of the line portal player because they don't have the money for it. We are in a period that we can compete for anyone. We won't go crazy like Tech but Tech has to pay more because they are in the big 12 and because they are Tech.

PeekingDuck said:

---

Because you're looking at a goofy in/out metric when all of those guys weren't necessarily going to start or garner much playing time. In absolute strength of class, LSU and Texas are #1 and #2. All the wishful thinking in the world ain't gonna help us on the field. We're either all in or we're not. At this point it seems like we're content being an also ran. That's fine, but we seem to have this delusion that we're all in which is odd.

---

You do realize Texas lost several starters and guys from the two deep to the portal right? That absolutely matters and should in any ranking.

I wonder if Indiana still has fans complaining that they didn't go all in and buy a team full of 5 stars last year…

Teslag said:

---

PeekingDuck said:

---

Because you're looking at a goofy in/out metric when all of those guys weren't necessarily going to start or garner much playing time. In absolute strength of class, LSU and Texas are #1 and #2. All the wishful thinking in the world ain't gonna help us on the field. We're either all in or we're not. At this point it seems like we're content being an also ran. That's fine, but we seem to have this delusion that we're all in which is odd.

---

You do realize Texas lost several starters and guys from the two deep to the portal right? That absolutely matters and should in any ranking.

---

The point of a "portal class ranking" is to rank the class of portal players that you are bringing in. Teams lose players every year to the draft, graduation, and now to the portal. How come we didn't do high school recruiting rankings based on players you also lost to the draft and graduation in previous years? That should matter too based on your argument right?

Not 100% a hard fast rule, but I think it would be safe to assume when a big, well $ program has a strong inco portal class... that most of the outgoing class wasn't fought for that hard.

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

PeekingDuck said:

---

Because you're looking at a goofy in/out metric when all of those guys weren't necessarily going to start or garner much playing time. In absolute strength of class, LSU and Texas are #1 and #2. All the wishful thinking in the world ain't gonna help us on the field. We're either all in or we're not. At this point it seems like we're content being an also ran. That's fine, but we seem to have this delusion that we're all in which is odd.

---

You do realize Texas lost several starters and guys from the two deep to the portal right? That absolutely matters and should in any ranking.

---

The point of a "portal class ranking" is to rank the class of portal players that you are bringing in. Teams lose players every year to the draft, graduation, and now to the portal. How come we didn't do high school recruiting rankings based on players you also lost to the draft and graduation in previous years? That should matter too based on your argument right?

---

Losing 22 and 23 year old players to the draft and replacing them with 17 and 18 year olds isn't a 1:1 proposition and never was. It's not comparable. Replacing upperclassmen transfers with the same most definitely is.

Teslag said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

PeekingDuck said:

---

Because you're looking at a goofy in/out metric when all of those guys weren't necessarily going to start or garner much playing time. In absolute strength of class, LSU and Texas are #1 and #2. All the wishful thinking in the world ain't gonna help us on the field. We're either all in or we're not. At this point it seems like we're content being an also ran. That's fine, but we seem to have this delusion that we're all in which is odd.

---

You do realize Texas lost several starters and guys from the two deep to the portal right? That absolutely matters and should in any ranking.

---

The point of a "portal class ranking" is to rank the class of portal players that you are bringing in. Teams lose players every year to the draft, graduation, and now to the portal. How come we didn't do high school recruiting rankings based on players you also lost to the draft and graduation in previous years? That should matter too based on your argument right?

---

Losing 22 and 23 year old players to the draft and replacing them with 17 and 18 year olds isn't a 1:1 proposition and never was. It's not comparable. Replacing upperclassmen transfers with the same most definitely is.

---

Imagine a guy working this hard just to punch himself in the junk? He's either a troll or a sadomasicist. Either of which, ignoring is probably the best option.

Right

PeekingDuck said:

---

Because you're looking at a goofy in/out metric when all of those guys weren't necessarily going to start or garner much playing time. In absolute strength of class, LSU and Texas are #1 and #2. All the wishful thinking in the world ain't gonna help us on the field. We're either all in or we're not. At this point it seems like we're content being an also ran. That's fine, but we seem to have this delusion that we're all in which is odd.

---

That is comical

PeekingDuck said:

---

Because you're looking at a goofy in/out metric when all of those guys weren't necessarily going to start or garner much playing time. In absolute strength of class, LSU and Texas are #1 and #2. All the wishful thinking in the world ain't gonna help us on the field. We're either all in or we're not. At this point it seems like we're content being an also ran. That's fine, but we seem to have this delusion that we're all in which is odd.

---

the more coolest guy said:

---

I wonder if Indiana still has fans complaining that they didn't go all in and buy a team full of 5 stars last year…

---

Wouldn't matter. Their coaching staff has gotten them into the playoffs two years straight. They won a conference championship, got a 1st round bye, won a playoff game.

In short, their coaches have proven themselves

11-2 and in the playoffs in year 2…you could make the argument that our coaches have proven themselves a bit too. Respectfully.

the more coolest guy said:

---

11-2 and in the playoffs in year 2…you could make the argument that our coaches have proven themselves a bit too. Respectfully.

---

Nah. We just got lucky. Duh

the more coolest guy said:

---

11-2 and in the playoffs in year 2…you could make the argument that our coaches have proven themselves a bit too. Respectfully.

---

They've proven they can win a bunch of games September-October. They have not proven to win games that add hardware

Justice Beaver said:

---

Jimbo4win said:

---

PeekingDuck said:

---

How did they do against Texas?

---

That's easy. They finished ahead of Texas in the SEC making the playoffs while Texas played a goofy bowl game..I literally can't think of anything more embarrassing than being forced to play a bowl game in a world where they are now…well embarrassing..

---

Now do 2024

---

By far one of the biggest high to low moments in my A&M Fandom.

Blonde Coffee Beans said:

---

the more coolest guy said:

---

11-2 and in the playoffs in year 2…you could make the argument that our coaches have proven themselves a bit too. Respectfully.

---

They've proven they can win a bunch of games September-October. They have not proven to win games that add hardware

---

Didn't they go 3-1 (2-1 SEC) in November and subsequently locking down a playoff spot?

No conference championship, loss to rival, no playoff win. The win count is good and trending in the right direction but at some point you have to win something that matters.

Something that matters?!?!? Notre Dame didn't matter to you? Baton Rouge didn't matter to you? Being 11-0 and ranked 3rd didn't matter to you?

Lord, I hope this is just where all the negatives come and it's not a large percentage of Ags! Helluva year! Didn't end well, but still: Helluva YEAR!

PeekingDuck said:

---

No conference championship, loss to rival, no playoff win. The win count is good and trending in the right direction but at some point you have to win something that matters.

---

This.

Until Elko raises the NC championship above his head all of the blabbering we see here is just that… blabbering about all the great things we'll do "next year". Which is the one aspect of college football in which Aggies rule supreme. Want to shut up the naysayers? Go win the biggest of the big boy trophies. Until then keep up with the blabbering. What else is there for us to do I suppose.

PeekingDuck said:

---

Because you're looking at a goofy in/out metric when all of those guys weren't necessarily going to start or garner much playing time. In absolute strength of class, LSU and Texas are #1 and #2. All the wishful thinking in the world ain't gonna help us on the field. We're either all in or we're not. At this point it seems like we're content being an also ran. That's fine, but we seem to have this delusion that we're all in which is odd.

---

No offense, but you have zero clue who is the tops in terms of actual strength of class. LSU has 9 WRs, 3 RBs, and 3 QBs committed. All flash that leads to high rankings because rankings systems are lazy and always put WRs higher than guys in the trenches on average. The true strength will be when teams line up and see who wins in the trenches.

All the rankings in the world also aren't going to help you on the field next fall. Only time will tell who was really #1 or #2.

And yes, no matter how silly you think it is, losing depth is not a good thing. It's a high risk, high reward system than can really backfire just as easily as lead you to greatness.

You give them all the benefit of the doubt, but at the end of the day, they are losing a TON of guys coming off multiple top 5 classes that Sark and his current staff recruited. Why is that not factored in? Going into year 6 with multiple top 5s on campus, why are they needing to shed so much talent? It's not like years 1/2 where it makes sense to turn over the roster. Turning over that much roster in year 6 should be questioned as to what kind of evaluations you were making.

So again, if they needed to do it to this extreme, why all of the sudden are we trusting their talent evaluations are hitting better now?

Plus a tight end, 4 O-Lineman, 2 DL, 3 DE's, 2 Safeties, 1 kicker, 1 punter, and 1 long snapper so far.....at least be thorough.


Lane flipped his WR room to players who fit his style of O and rebuilt the depth of his RB room which is why you see the skill positions heavy.

PeekingDuck said:

---

The good news is that the proof will be on the field next year. One of us will be right.

---

The funny thing is, some of us are taking the I don't really know, more of a wait and see stance.

You are taking the extreme stance. So even if you end up being right, it's not like I was "wrong". Either texas or LSU could be a great team next year. Both could also struggle. Same with us. No one really knows.

What I do know is that we hit on a high rate of the guys we targeted and did in fact, spend a lot this portal haul.

Evaluations will tell a big tale this fall. I'm not saying he's Curt Cignetti. Have more to prove to be that level. But overall, Elko's portal evaluations have actually been great. Easily top 5 his first two hauls. So have Lane's. Texas? More TBD. They won in 2023/2024 mostly via HS recruiting.

Teslag said:

---

Blonde Coffee Beans said:

---

the more coolest guy said:

---

11-2 and in the playoffs in year 2…you could make the argument that our coaches have proven themselves a bit too. Respectfully.

---

They've proven they can win a bunch of games September-October. They have not proven to win games that add hardware

---

Didn't they go 3-1 (2-1 SEC) in November and subsequently locking down a playoff spot?

---

Now add 2024

Oh no. Year 1 of new staff

Lol

magnolia tiger said:

---

Plus a tight end, 4 O-Lineman, 2 DL, 3 DE's, 2 Safeties, 1 kicker, 1 punter, and 1 long snapper so far.....at least be thorough.

---

Kind of missed the point. The point was that WRs lead to higher rankings. He is saying definitively they got the better haul. I'm simply saying numbers can make it seem that way, but really don't paint the whole picture. Especially when that many are in offensive skill guys.

Yes, they also got lineman. How good are they compared to ours, I don't know. But we got most of the ones we wanted.

Also, they lost 8 OL and 5 DL. So yeah, I agree. Be thorough.

New staff has to beat tu. We all know that. Winning an SEC championship would be nice but is much harder. Many of us have heartburn with 0-2 against our rival. Gotta win that game if he wants to stay around long term. Losing this year, particularly how mismatched we looked in the 2nd half took a lot of luster off the season. I hope he's Ryan Day and eventually gets that monkey off his back. That's a pretty big stain to many Aggie fans on his resume so far.

vander54 said:

---

Oh no. Year 1 of new staff

Lol

---

Sounds like excuses. You're perfect

PeekingDuck said:

---

No conference championship, loss to rival, no playoff win. The win count is good and trending in the right direction but at some point you have to win something that matters.

---

Didn't we beat our other rival LSU? Or do they no longer count as a rival since we won and you lose the data point?

Ok tough man, what was your predictions for year 1 and 2 of Elko? Back them up with posts on TexAgs. If you can't show your work then you are a blowhard.