|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Feb 4, 2016 15:42:39 GMT -8
Why would you laugh out loud at my opinion? do you think your opinion is superior to mine? do you want to belittle my statements by laughing in my face about it? (that is obvious sarcasm) "crazy talk" is a common American colloquialism. to paint it as an offensive statement is...well... crazy talk. And really? you don't strike up conversations with people at bars and/or other social places? I feel that is not that unusual of a thing to do, but then again, I was born well before Facebook. LOL... is a is a common American acronym... to paint it as directed as a statement my thoughts are superior, or laughing AT you or your opinion... or belittling you is well, crazier talk! It could be laughing at the inane continuation of this thread??? Just a possible scenario for you to consider... And, also born (never been to a FB page or wall or  ) before FB (as most on here are... as FB is only 12 years old... inception in 2004) and do quite often strike up random conversations. But, I would never be so rude to use "a common American colloquialism" such as that to a person I just met. Might think it, but then again I was born in a time certain social graces were used even IF we thought someone was crazy... no sarcasm included. LOL... |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Feb 4, 2016 15:51:40 GMT -8
I just wanted to say that's factually wrong. How about we both lighten up guys. It's a message board and we are on the same team. no reason to quibble about stuff like this. Hence the LOL... how do you know if either need to 'lighten up' Facts seem to escape you. Oh... and what is it that is factually wrong?? This is a cute reply after pontificating on how you were born in a era of certain social graces. |
|
|
|
Post by osubeavs721 on Feb 4, 2016 16:26:35 GMT -8
I just wanted to say that's factually wrong. How about we both lighten up guys. It's a message board and we are on the same team. no reason to quibble about stuff like this. Hence the LOL... how do you know if either need to 'lighten up' Facts seem to escape you. Oh... and what is it that is factually wrong?? Your definition of LOL is factually wrong. In your post trying to be funny. Atown and I aren't the one who got their panties in a bunch over a disagreement. |
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Feb 4, 2016 16:54:08 GMT -8
Hence the LOL... how do you know if either need to 'lighten up' Facts seem to escape you. Oh... and what is it that is factually wrong?? Your definition of LOL is factually wrong. In your post trying to be funny. Atown and I aren't the one who got their panties in a bunch over a disagreement. His panties have been in a bunch since he posted as youngorst on the Scout.com board. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Feb 5, 2016 7:39:55 GMT -8
Your definition of LOL is factually wrong. In your post trying to be funny. Atown and I aren't the one who got their panties in a bunch over a disagreement. His panties have been in a bunch since he posted as youngorst on the Scout.com board. LOL LOL LOL... sorry never been to such a board... but, keep guessing, there is no score being kept. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Feb 5, 2016 7:42:49 GMT -8
Hence the LOL... how do you know if either need to 'lighten up' Facts seem to escape you. Oh... and what is it that is factually wrong?? Your definition of LOL is factually wrong. In your post trying to be funny. Atown and I aren't the one who got their panties in a bunch over a disagreement. LMAO... so LOL is not a common acronym??? Text much? Again... interpreting someone else's motives (humor... who's panties are in their arse crack) from black and white... is the fallacy. You really have zero intuition into anyone's posts but your own. But, appreciate your two cents. So... since this is devolving into nothing about said post you boys can play by yourselves now... :>) |
|
|
|
Post by cobeaver on Feb 5, 2016 8:23:45 GMT -8
And so after a few messages from our sponsors we will return to the Jerry Springer Show.
GO BEAVS, ftd.
|
|
|
|
Post by beavadelic on Feb 5, 2016 8:33:16 GMT -8
I'm pretty sure that Michael Phillipp was a 5 star OL coming out of high school in San Bernadino (I believe). I seem to remember him being the #1 or #2 rated OG in his class in the nation. Unfortunately, between injuries and disruption on the line in general, he never seemed to reach his projected potential.
As for Isaac - no question in my mind that he would have one of the first linemen taken in the draft had he not had that horrible foot injury and equally horrible rehab. He was maybe 90% late last year, but that injury cost him a load of cash and really sabotaged his greatness. Ask USC - - not a program in the country that didn't see him as "can't miss" coming out of high school, but for the big time kids to fulfill top potential, it takes a boatload of variables working out, and staying healthy is probably #1!
|
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Feb 5, 2016 9:00:24 GMT -8
I'm pretty sure that Michael Phillipp was a 5 star OL coming out of high school in San Bernadino (I believe). I seem to remember him being the #1 or #2 rated OG in his class in the nation. Unfortunately, between injuries and disruption on the line in general, he never seemed to reach his projected potential. As for Isaac - no question in my mind that he would have one of the first linemen taken in the draft had he not had that horrible foot injury and equally horrible rehab. He was maybe 90% late last year, but that injury cost him a load of cash and really sabotaged his greatness. Ask USC - - not a program in the country that didn't see him as "can't miss" coming out of high school, but for the big time kids to fulfill top potential, it takes a boatload of variables working out, and staying healthy is probably #1! Phillipp was a 4* for sure. Isaac was the guy was initially 5* but towards the end finally settled out at a 4* but on the bubble. generally the top 50 nation wide recruits get 5* (depending) and Isaac was rated right around 52, 53 or so. again, just depends. Now, HE would get my crown for did not live up to expectations. But same kind of story with Isaac, except I would say Isaac had the far better freshman year. Injuries derailed that career for sure. Just like Jeremy Perry. THAT was a 1st round talent OL... sad. Oh man, speaking of blasts from the past, any body remember Kenan (sp?) Sanchez? Erickson/early Riley lineman... dude that guy was good for a personal foul a game, but man he was a ball of nasty. I can't remember the team, but I remember him ripping a defender's helmet off and chucking it like 15 yards downfield! ha. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Feb 5, 2016 13:56:01 GMT -8
FWIW 247sports has Seaumalo as a 5 star on their composition ranking, which is based on an average of known ranking services. They had him as the 26th best player and number one offensive guard.
It seems to me in high school he was regarded as being the top DT in the nation (can't remember if this was game performance or by his performance at some noted camps) but was projected as an OG by the scouts for college and beyond.
|
|
|
|
Post by beavadelic on Feb 5, 2016 14:03:35 GMT -8
I didn't realize that the "5 star" ranking only went to top 50 prospects. That could mean that no O-lineman might get a 5 star ranking in certain years. Seems weird, and also casts a shadow for me in ranking that way. IMO, the top 5 kids at every position should be a 5 star. In the end, it helps to accentuate for me that there are a probably a ton of 4 stars who are just as good. With weird arbitrary criteria like this, it explains why a load of 3 stars are playing on Sundays, and why all but 4 or 5 top programs make a living off of 3 star kids - talented enough kids who mature and get coached up!
|
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Feb 5, 2016 15:07:05 GMT -8
I don't even think it's 50 most years, more like 30.
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Feb 5, 2016 15:09:12 GMT -8
I didn't realize that the "5 star" ranking only went to top 50 prospects. That could mean that no O-lineman might get a 5 star ranking in certain years. Seems weird, and also casts a shadow for me in ranking that way. IMO, the top 5 kids at every position should be a 5 star. In the end, it helps to accentuate for me that there are a probably a ton of 4 stars who are just as good. With weird arbitrary criteria like this, it explains why a load of 3 stars are playing on Sundays, and why all but 4 or 5 top programs make a living off of 3 star kids - talented enough kids who mature and get coached up! I think I read Denver's team is a 2.47 average star rating with maybe one 5*... ratings are nice for the one's who's livelihood depend on it, but really mean squat to how a kid really turns out. Obviously talent is talent... but heart, desire, work ethic, emotional stability, and a little luck in the health department are much larger factors. |
|
|
|
Post by beavadelic on Feb 5, 2016 15:51:45 GMT -8
I always like seeing stats like that. While I am not nearly as cynical regarding the star system as my good friend is, we often get amused by games in which "USC, with 13 5 star kids on the offensive side of the ball, loses to OSU and it's merry band of 2 and 3 star players!"
I absolutely want our coaches to pursue the top-ranked recruits, because talent does matter. What I've come to realize is that the gap between a 5 star and a 3 star can be amazingly thin. It might be their 40 time or physical measurables, or who they played high school ball for, and/or WHO is recruiting them that bumps them to higher status, but I fully agree that heart, effort, coachability and opportunity all play enormous parts in this. As long as an athlete possesses solid talent/tools to work (virtually every 3 star kid) they can play with anyone. The problem is when those more highly-touted kids have the right hunger and good coaching. In those cases, when they're clicking a team full of 4 and 5 star kids are going win over a team of 3 stars nearly every time.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdogge on Feb 5, 2016 16:27:50 GMT -8
His panties have been in a bunch since he posted as youngorst on the Scout.com board. LOL LOL LOL... sorry never been to such a board... but, keep guessing, there is no score being kept. Sure, whatever ... |
|
) before FB (as most on here are... as FB is only 12 years old... inception in 2004) and do quite often strike up random conversations. But, I would never be so rude to use "a common American colloquialism" such as that to a person I just met. Might think it, but then again I was born in a time certain social graces were used even IF we thought someone was crazy... no sarcasm included.
