"Grumble, I don't like it!" - tOfficial VTfoozball thread

[Camfantasy]

clarify

"If you guys like Clark then you'd like anybody. I've seen 4.6 and 4.7 times for him and the film backs that up."

"Never mind that Clark had the worst measurables and least amount of offers (2) of any DB that VT has offered. I'd bet there isn't anyone in the current 2 deep secondary as slow as he is. Maybe as a senior he will be a backup safety. I would not have offered someone like him early especially in a year with limited scholarships."

"Nah I ain't mad, you delusional homers. Actually I am a little mad if Clark scares off some better DBs from committing. That's my problem with him. VT of all teams should not mess with DBs that have questionable tools."

All of those were quotes from you. Nothing about that comes across, to me atleast, as I just like some players potential a little more than others. That comes across as so and so does not deserve to be playing football for Virginia Tech. And you sir, have no right, nor wisdom for that matter, to even begin to judge a 17 year ol kid at his future potential as a D1 football player. We pay one of the best coaching staffs in the country millions of dollars a year to do that....not you. That is why everyone here gets excited at the potential of new players playing for the team we love so much, and is why we jump down your throat when you berate them for not being up to your expectations. Because our coaching staff knows what they are doing, and you do not.

The prosecution rests.

 

[Rocky]

You will never see this sport completely dominated by tall WRs. I mean, to the extent that shorter guys can't get on the field. You need both. Height can be a disadvantage as much as it can be an advantage.

Especially when your piece falls out of your sweats and nearly blows off your progeny.

 

[Rocky]

My issue was more with using players like Wes Welker and Danny Coale to prove a point. I think the phrase I'm looking for is: "there are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics". Yes, maybe there have been a few short guys who were good. There are also plenty that didn't work out, though..

Its the converse that is being analyzed. Again, the median height of the 32 best all time NFL franchise WRs is 6 ft. Half are above, and half are below. Fact, not damned lie.

You are falling into the same logic trap that fooz did, one that is not supported by statistical facts.

The point isn't whether or not Welker is an anomaly (he isn't, Mark Clayton, Ernest Givins, Steve Smith, etc), its whether or not guys like Harold Carmichael are an anomaly (he is)

The taller WR is rarer than the shorter WR, with 6 ft even being the median.

 

[Rocky]

So I guess you are assuming that all the players who seem to be more physically gifted on VTs target list have hidden problems? Great logic there. Thanks for clearing that up. You are one of those types that almost never finds fault with a VT coach or player, attacks people who do, and is completely satisfied with the VT football program the way it is. Every VT player is the best ever and every VT coach is the best ever. Got it. I don't have an infinite amount of patience with people especially those who ignore what they want to regarding what I say and disagree with me without using facts to back up their argument

My last on this for you fooz

The "more physically gifted on VTs target list" have similarly gone through the gauntlet of VTs assessment process. They weren't offered simply based on "tools", so your comeback above is illogical and insulting.

We are all VT fans here. You are like a little brother that has acted badly, and has been given a smackdown by some older brothers, for bad behavior.

Instead of trying to listen to logic, and others with the same overall interest that you do (a VT national championship) , you seem more inclined to simply dig in, and defend your indefensible position. I've seen guys like that in business all my life, and I can tell you, its far better to just shut up once in awhile, and try to digest what is being said to you from the masses, because there obviously must be something that you are either missing, or are just to stubborn to consider. I suspect you would have flunked the VT offer checksheet.

 

[VTfoozball]

"If you guys like Clark then you'd like anybody. I've seen 4.6 and 4.7 times for him and the film backs that up."

"Never mind that Clark had the worst measurables and least amount of offers (2) of any DB that VT has offered. I'd bet there isn't anyone in the current 2 deep secondary as slow as he is. Maybe as a senior he will be a backup safety. I would not have offered someone like him early especially in a year with limited scholarships."

"Nah I ain't mad, you delusional homers. Actually I am a little mad if Clark scares off some better DBs from committing. That's my problem with him. VT of all teams should not mess with DBs that have questionable tools."

All of those were quotes from you. Nothing about that comes across, to me atleast, as I just like some players potential a little more than others. That comes across as so and so does not deserve to be playing football for Virginia Tech. And you sir, have no right, nor wisdom for that matter, to even begin to judge a 17 year ol kid at his future potential as a D1 football player. We pay one of the best coaching staffs in the country millions of dollars a year to do that....not you. That is why everyone here gets excited at the potential of new players playing for the team we love so much, and is why we jump down your throat when you berate them for not being up to your expectations. Because our coaching staff knows what they are doing, and you do not.

The prosecution rests.

Ok I lied but this is about the only reason to come back to this. I have mentioned to you specifically I know at least once that my opinion of Clark was based on the film I saw of A Charles Clark which turned out to NOT be THE Charles Clark. So now I have no opinion of Clark because I don't know anything about him other than the coaches think he's good. But he does have the slowest listed 40 time of any DB VT has offered in 2013. Whatever that is worth.

 

[NickVT10]

Film is not on the field performance? Oh I know if it's good film and he's not a VT commit then he must take plays off or be a future coke addict

Film is not on field performance, it is a snipit of a season. Production and how he plays against certain opponents is on field performance. I highly doubt you sat and broke down a season's worth of film on all these guys like our coaches have to evaluate them.

Where are you getting all this shit that if a guy isn't a VT commit then we all hate him and rag on him? If you look through the threads when we miss a guy, the responses are that we hope he does well, he is a better fit for that system, etc. Positive things. Yes we do comment that a guy might be a better fit for another school because of his character because we don't want certain types of character traits on our team representing our school.

Criticism is good, but you have to back it up other than he runs a 4.6 so he isn't good.

 

[VTfoozball]

"Where are you getting all this shit that if a guy isn't a VT commit then we all hate him and rag on him?"

I have no discipline. I mean none.
For the fiftieth time, this all started when I said I like certain players on VTs offer list better than others some of which haven't committed and possibly won't. That kind of talk isn't permitted here I guess judging by the reactions of many. So when I like someone who is not a VT commit then the hate comes for the player. When I bring up that someone looks better on film it's "what about the intangibles" "college and pros are full of small, slow guys" It sure looks like hate to me

"Criticism is good, but you have to back it up other than he runs a 4.6 so he isn't good."

My criticism was because of the film mostly which I've stated too many times to count.

 

[HokieGhost]

It was the post I replied to where you brought up other various factors that played into the coaches evaluations. It sure seemed like you were using those to defend someone like Newsome and cut down someone like North

Clarify.

 

[Chrish1023]

Its the converse that is being analyzed. Again, the median height of the 32 best all time NFL franchise WRs is 6 ft. Half are above, and half are below. Fact, not damned lie.

You are falling into the same logic trap that fooz did, one that is not supported by statistical facts.

The point isn't whether or not Welker is an anomaly (he isn't, Mark Clayton, Ernest Givins, Steve Smith, etc), its whether or not guys like Harold Carmichael are an anomaly (he is)

The taller WR is rarer than the shorter WR, with 6 ft even being the median.

Hahaha that's where the phrase comes from! You can use statistics to prove anything you want. If I cared, I'd go and create a list of all the pro bowlers from the past decade and I'd bet money that the median height is greater than 6 feet.

Trust me, I'm not siding with Fooz because he has definitely taken this too far. Using random statistics in an attempt to persuade people is just not going to work, though. All of us agree that we have to give the recruits a chance first. If Fooz is going to keep being stubborn, then what's the point of even elaborating your argument?

 

[HokieGhost]

It was the post I replied to where you brought up other various factors that played into the coaches evaluations. It sure seemed like you were using those to defend someone like Newsome and cut down someone like North

Produce any post where I supposedly cut down any recruit.

I'll wait.

 

[hokiecheme11]

Haven't seen Tookes but McKinnon looks like an ideal WHIP despite not being the biggest guy. See I like VT commits

If you go by hokiesports, McKinnon has 20 lbs on Tweedy, putting him right around the same weight as JGW and RVD. So he seems plenty big to me

 

[hokiegrad]

I have an opinion based on what I see. You have an opinion based on what? You are protecting VT commits for what reason?

Going off a little half-cocked, aren't we? I can't have an opinion without you denigrating it? Oh, but the best part is that I didn't share an opinion, and haven't protected any VT commits, so I don't know what you're fussing about. You need to read more closely. Couldn't answer what I posted, so you came up with this garbage response... epic fail.

 

[hokiegrad]

"Where are you getting all this shit that if a guy isn't a VT commit then we all hate him and rag on him?"

I have no discipline. I mean none.
For the fiftieth time, this all started when I said I like certain players on VTs offer list better than others some of which haven't committed and possibly won't. That kind of talk isn't permitted here I guess judging by the reactions of many. So when I like someone who is not a VT commit then the hate comes for the player. When I bring up that someone looks better on film it's "what about the intangibles" "college and pros are full of small, slow guys" It sure looks like hate to me

"Criticism is good, but you have to back it up other than he runs a 4.6 so he isn't good."

My criticism was because of the film mostly which I've stated too many times to count.

Nobody is giving you grief for liking "certain players on VTs offer list better than others some of which haven't committed and possibly won't". That's true of all of us. We're giving you grief for the way you've been acting and for the multitude of thickheaded responses you've made. If you stuck to making comments of your impressions based on film, you would not be getting this reaction. We like that kind of thing.

 

[VTfoozball]

Going off a little half-cocked, aren't we? I can't have an opinion without you denigrating it? Oh, but the best part is that I didn't share an opinion, and haven't protected any VT commits, so I don't know what you're fussing about. You need to read more closely. Couldn't answer what I posted, so you came up with this garbage response... epic fail.

"Obviously the coaches like North and Newsome enough to offer both, yes. That doesn't mean they have North higher on their board!"

I never said he was higher on their board I said I liked his film better. Someone said Newsome was a 1st choice just because he committed first which is absurd. When you and others bring up the unseen and the unknown about VT targets that have NOT committed to VT then you're attacking them (the uncommitted players). It is either one or the other, there is no in-between and you can't have it both ways. You and others can't disagree with my assessment based on measurables, film, AND a VT offer and still NOT be ragging on a potential VT player.

 

[VTfoozball]

If you go by hokiesports, McKinnon has 20 lbs on Tweedy, putting him right around the same weight as JGW and RVD. So he seems plenty big to me

So the standard is our current WHIP players which are so bad that we basically have had to abandon the position the last 2 years? He is still a LB and it's good to have all the size at LB that you can especially if VT is going with an undersized front 4. He's 6'1" which will make it a little harder for him to gain weight than someone taller but I don't think he needs to. I'd say he will anyway though. He will be a good one I think

 

[VTfoozball]

Produce any post where I supposedly cut down any recruit.

I'll wait.

You're going to have to explain what you meant then. If I was wrong then I don't know what you were responding to or what you were trying to say

 

[HokieGhost]

"Obviously the coaches like North and Newsome enough to offer both, yes. That doesn't mean they have North higher on their board!"

I never said he was higher on their board I said I liked his film better. Someone said Newsome was a 1st choice just because he committed first which is absurd. When you and others bring up the unseen and the unknown about VT targets that have NOT committed to VT then you're attacking them (the uncommitted players). It is either one or the other, there is no in-between and you can't have it both ways. You and others can't disagree with my assessment based on measurables, film, AND a VT offer and still NOT be ragging on a potential VT player.

"Someone said...."?? Really?? Delving deep into the old fact-box, are we?

"When you and others bring up the unseen and the unknown about VT targets that have NOT committed to VT then you're attacking them (the uncommitted players)"?? We're attacking them? Seriously?? So, because several of us have been around Tech recruiting probably longer than you've been alive, and we know how Beamer and his staff evaluates players, we're attacking (the uncommitted players)??

And here's you're ultimate silliness: "You and others can't disagree with my assessment based on measurables, film, AND a VT offer and still NOT be ragging on a potential VT player". So, that's your bottom line...if we disagree with your so-called "expert" analysis, we're actually attacking Tech recruits?? Ridiculous.

I'll say this for you...you've got one heck of an overblown sense of self-worth.

 

[HokieGhost]

You're going to have to explain what you meant then. If I was wrong then I don't know what you were responding to or what you were trying to say

I've discovered over the years when someone gets backed into a corner they resort to claiming they have no knowledge of a certain conversation.

You made the claim I attacked a recruit. Prove it, or apologize.

Again, I'll wait.

 

[VTfoozball]

Absolutely correct. In addition to physical ability and football IQ, Tech's coaches look for, in no particular order:

* Good motor, or lack thereof...do they take plays off? Are they lazy or driven?

* Character...good, bad, or in-between?

* Academics...can they get past Tech's entry requirements? Will they be a problem in the classroom?

* Good references from people and coaches known by the Tech staff

* Are they a legacy recruit? Do they have good bloodlines?

Here I went ahead and looked this up for you. You mentioned this right in the middle of the Newsome vs. North debate in this thread. Your point was? The only possible inference I can get out of it in that context is that you were dumping on North.

 

[VTfoozball]

"Someone said...."?? Really?? Delving deep into the old fact-box, are we?

Yeah someone said Newsome was a 1st choice also in this thread but I'm not looking that one up