Enjoy drinking that terrible shit lol .. it ruins a lot more lives than weed
Geovante Howard in the Transfer Portal
- Thread starter purduepat1969
- Start date
Oh that’s right .. weed is a “gateway drug”.. I’m gonna go look back on all those times I didn’t do other drugs with regret lol
Well, I would say ditto... don't be an @sshole.
Look. You and I have had some pleasant exchanges. And, we've had some direct, ("tense"?) exchanges. I don't dislike you, and I don't think you dislike me. At times we have different points of view. On this, you're just wrong with your methods.
You started a thread, and the point of your thread was clear, when you wrote: "And yet another top recruit (JUCO) gone..."
You were trying to leverage all the prior departures, and trying to position Howard as a ... 'top recruit' (he wasn't). You just made my point clear, in that regard, with your last sentence.
When called on all that, you tried to hide behind the player by suggesting any disagreement with you was nothing more than a "diss" to the player (it wasn't).
Look, I get it... you're frustrated. You want a winning season. We all do. There's nothing to be gained by the constant carping, and positioning of any bad news that it's yet another poor reflection on Brohm.
I've said before, he will live or die on his own merits. Trying to manufacture the loss of a 3-star JUCO as losing a "top player" reeks of an agenda. If that's not your intent, stop with this, and stop lashing out in profanities when someone calls you on it.
I think you're better than this.
Yeah you’re probably right. I’m sure that much weed was just personal use, you know, just to chill...
Perspective is ....it was at 2 AM during a game week. Think he’s taking the program that seriously?
Last edited:
There is an article on a rival web service that referred to him as a top recruit, and included several other power schools that offered him a scholarship.
it's obvious it didn't work out.
it's obvious several other top rated recruits didn't work out as well.
I have a couple of different takes.
the first is many posters here claimed our recruiting classes were awesome based on their ranking, and the rankings of the players at the time they were recruited. obviously, if those players did not remain or even contribute, their rating was not as high as fans hoped. and obviously, their recruiting class was not near as awesome as its rating. When you convert a Qb to Te, should his recruiting rating remain as high? I don't believe so. For the people who love math and formulas, if you remove the players who left and contributed nothing from that class rating, how far down does it fall? Subtract three 4 star recruits , and several more 3 star recruits and how low of a class rating do you have? when recruited, howard had a 3 star, 86 point ranking. his rating was higher than Grahm's and Graham was called a top recruit. . Piferi the year before had a 85.6 as a QB. Carr was 92. murphy was 90. faucheaux was 88. if you throw in the offensive linemen that left, and the other players that left, how bad were those recruiting classes? A little subtraction and division would most likely indicate the y were no better than a 50-75 ranking - much like the coach before him. what's teh difference between a coach who is a terrible recruiter, and one who has high recruiting class rankings, but those players never play for purdue?
my second take is people say these players are top recruits, based on what? how many people here actually saw Carr play? or howard play? or any of these other players play? isn't your opinion of these players basically made based on their internet ratings? and if those ratings are wrong, who is to say other internet ratings are also wrong? is grant as good as his rating was? Were anderson and taylor as good as their ratings? is Yaseen really that good? I'll admit, i don't know. But they sure had high ratings when they were recruited.
is it possible purdue's recruiting classes over the past 10 years were highly inflated? I'm not going to blame our coaching staff or our developmental staff for not developing these players. I'm beginning to believe these payers were just not as good as their ratings indicated. this makes me believe a better rating for a recruit is not his number or star rating, but rather the other schools who made him an offer. if purdue is the only power 5 school to make a player an offer, I have to wonder how great that player actually is. beating out ackron, Indiana st and ball st for a player doesn't give me a warm fuzzy about that player or his lofty recruiting ranking.
my third take is some people have a short memory and don't like reliving the past. many people praised the signing of howard when he first came to purdue as being a top player. and now because he didn't pan out and he's leaving, you label him as a juco and very seldom do JUCOS's ever work out and blah blah blah. Cam newton was a Juco. many great players were jucos. and when he first signed, being a JUCO didn't matter to you. You praised him. and thought he was a great addition. but now that he's leaving, all you have are negative comments about him. it would be nice if when you praise a player, and he doesn't work out, you own up to it, and admit, yes, i thought he'd be a great player and it just didn't work out. i was excited when Carr committed. i was excited when Taylor committed and when Fauchaeux committed. i also loved Hartwig. I'll admit, my assessment on howard was wrong. but it wasn't me who gave him his rating. howard WAS a top recruit when he came to purdue.
I thought with all of our quality Wrs, Carr could become an All American TE in much the same way several other former boilermakers became All American TEs. Purdue has a nice history of All American TEs who catch the ball and don't block. I'm not buying this story that Izzo promised he could play basketball. Carr was a 6'5 power forward in high school. No way will he see a minute of playing time for MSU basketball. and no way would he be a PF at purdue either. or for that matter, be a PF for any power 5 school. and you can't just transform from being a PF in high school to being a guard in college. carr was also a top recruit, but he became a cancer at purdue. he could have started at TE and become an all american at TE. and brohm has a lot of plays designed for TEs. Carr could have easily scored 10+ TDs and had 800+ yards as a TE. But Carr wanted to be a WR, and could not beat out the others to start. So he saw the future, and didn't want to be a back-up and left for wha t he believes will be greener pastures.
the problem with Carr leaving and not being able to crack our starting lineup is that other high school elite prospects will see this and think twice about coming to purdue. they see the success story of rondale moore being a star as a freshmen, and then see carr who was a much higher ranked recruit can't even break the starting lineup in his second year. Elite prospects don't like to go to schools and sit on the bench. That's why that TE came home to play for Illinois. he was a flop in the SEC.
my last point is i look at all these departures on the offensive line, defensive line, backfield, secondary, kicking game and other spots, and say , sure, these players were not starters. however, many of them including the offensive linemen started a couple of games and played in several others , and they did offer something. they offered DEPTH !!!!! for over 5 years, people on the board keep telling me it takes over 5 years to build depth. Well that 5 years came and left. and we still have zero depth at many of our key positions. and if a certain player is injured, or replacements are not close to the ability of our starters. and we can't build or sustain our depth, if our non-starters keep leaving. We desperately need these guys to stay. we need their experience. we can't keep redshirting players, and then saying good bye one year later. MSU is going to get Carr for 4 years. To have any hope of success, we need to keep our players even if they are not projected as starters. Look at purdue basketball. is edey going to start at center ? or will it be Furst or Williams? Will Williams start at the 4, or will it be Kaufman, or Gillis? Will kaufman start at the 3, or will it be Sasha? Gillis sure seems like he'll be the odd man out with the arrival of kaufman and furst. the same applies to IT at guard. but they provide something the Purdue football team will never have - they provide quality DEPTH !!!!
I'm not sad to see Carr and all these other players leave. but the reality is their departure creates the one deficiency brohm has never been able to fix. Quality - experienced depth. he has depth at WR. But if GK misses games, Purdue will be hurting. the drop-off between starters and bench is terrible. and brohm can no longer blame his predecessor for that lack of depth. the constant departure of non-starters, has created that void.
i also don't blame those two recruits for choosing auburn over purdue. Given a choice of two equal teams, great players usually pick the team with a winning tradition over the bad team that only offers them playing time. Elite players usually have enough confidence in themselves to be able to beat out competition. I have to believe Neal going undrafted was a huge factor. yes, it was neal's fault. but purdue's training and conditioning staff never got him back into playing at peak condition either.
one last thought. for those with bad memories. howard's rating was basically equal to the rating of that DT that chose to go to auburn. and you praised the recruit going to Auburn, and called him a top recruit ad a must have for our team. So if he doesn't pan out at auburn, will you say he was over rated too? I've noticed over the years, when players choose other schools over purdue, that purdue posters start losing their high predictions and praise for those players. But they praise incoming players as if they will be the next kerrigan or Light or brees, or moore or alstott.
my thoughts; very few of you have actually seen these new recruits in person. your basis of praise is based on what you read by some national rating service. maybe they are not as great as their rating. but that rating doesn't change just because they chose to go to a different school.
and who was that coach i wanted purdue to hire? my first choice was tressell. i believe it's been proven almost all coaches cheat to some degree. Purdue even had some coaches get caught. my second choice was not that LSU guy or the guy who rows boats. it was Terry Bowden. he was available. i'd really like to see purdue recruiting the same players other power 5 schools recruit. it saddens me when i see a top purdue recruit chose purdue over ball st and akron .
it's obvious it didn't work out.
it's obvious several other top rated recruits didn't work out as well.
I have a couple of different takes.
the first is many posters here claimed our recruiting classes were awesome based on their ranking, and the rankings of the players at the time they were recruited. obviously, if those players did not remain or even contribute, their rating was not as high as fans hoped. and obviously, their recruiting class was not near as awesome as its rating. When you convert a Qb to Te, should his recruiting rating remain as high? I don't believe so. For the people who love math and formulas, if you remove the players who left and contributed nothing from that class rating, how far down does it fall? Subtract three 4 star recruits , and several more 3 star recruits and how low of a class rating do you have? when recruited, howard had a 3 star, 86 point ranking. his rating was higher than Grahm's and Graham was called a top recruit. . Piferi the year before had a 85.6 as a QB. Carr was 92. murphy was 90. faucheaux was 88. if you throw in the offensive linemen that left, and the other players that left, how bad were those recruiting classes? A little subtraction and division would most likely indicate the y were no better than a 50-75 ranking - much like the coach before him. what's teh difference between a coach who is a terrible recruiter, and one who has high recruiting class rankings, but those players never play for purdue?
my second take is people say these players are top recruits, based on what? how many people here actually saw Carr play? or howard play? or any of these other players play? isn't your opinion of these players basically made based on their internet ratings? and if those ratings are wrong, who is to say other internet ratings are also wrong? is grant as good as his rating was? Were anderson and taylor as good as their ratings? is Yaseen really that good? I'll admit, i don't know. But they sure had high ratings when they were recruited.
is it possible purdue's recruiting classes over the past 10 years were highly inflated? I'm not going to blame our coaching staff or our developmental staff for not developing these players. I'm beginning to believe these payers were just not as good as their ratings indicated. this makes me believe a better rating for a recruit is not his number or star rating, but rather the other schools who made him an offer. if purdue is the only power 5 school to make a player an offer, I have to wonder how great that player actually is. beating out ackron, Indiana st and ball st for a player doesn't give me a warm fuzzy about that player or his lofty recruiting ranking.
my third take is some people have a short memory and don't like reliving the past. many people praised the signing of howard when he first came to purdue as being a top player. and now because he didn't pan out and he's leaving, you label him as a juco and very seldom do JUCOS's ever work out and blah blah blah. Cam newton was a Juco. many great players were jucos. and when he first signed, being a JUCO didn't matter to you. You praised him. and thought he was a great addition. but now that he's leaving, all you have are negative comments about him. it would be nice if when you praise a player, and he doesn't work out, you own up to it, and admit, yes, i thought he'd be a great player and it just didn't work out. i was excited when Carr committed. i was excited when Taylor committed and when Fauchaeux committed. i also loved Hartwig. I'll admit, my assessment on howard was wrong. but it wasn't me who gave him his rating. howard WAS a top recruit when he came to purdue.
I thought with all of our quality Wrs, Carr could become an All American TE in much the same way several other former boilermakers became All American TEs. Purdue has a nice history of All American TEs who catch the ball and don't block. I'm not buying this story that Izzo promised he could play basketball. Carr was a 6'5 power forward in high school. No way will he see a minute of playing time for MSU basketball. and no way would he be a PF at purdue either. or for that matter, be a PF for any power 5 school. and you can't just transform from being a PF in high school to being a guard in college. carr was also a top recruit, but he became a cancer at purdue. he could have started at TE and become an all american at TE. and brohm has a lot of plays designed for TEs. Carr could have easily scored 10+ TDs and had 800+ yards as a TE. But Carr wanted to be a WR, and could not beat out the others to start. So he saw the future, and didn't want to be a back-up and left for wha t he believes will be greener pastures.
the problem with Carr leaving and not being able to crack our starting lineup is that other high school elite prospects will see this and think twice about coming to purdue. they see the success story of rondale moore being a star as a freshmen, and then see carr who was a much higher ranked recruit can't even break the starting lineup in his second year. Elite prospects don't like to go to schools and sit on the bench. That's why that TE came home to play for Illinois. he was a flop in the SEC.
my last point is i look at all these departures on the offensive line, defensive line, backfield, secondary, kicking game and other spots, and say , sure, these players were not starters. however, many of them including the offensive linemen started a couple of games and played in several others , and they did offer something. they offered DEPTH !!!!! for over 5 years, people on the board keep telling me it takes over 5 years to build depth. Well that 5 years came and left. and we still have zero depth at many of our key positions. and if a certain player is injured, or replacements are not close to the ability of our starters. and we can't build or sustain our depth, if our non-starters keep leaving. We desperately need these guys to stay. we need their experience. we can't keep redshirting players, and then saying good bye one year later. MSU is going to get Carr for 4 years. To have any hope of success, we need to keep our players even if they are not projected as starters. Look at purdue basketball. is edey going to start at center ? or will it be Furst or Williams? Will Williams start at the 4, or will it be Kaufman, or Gillis? Will kaufman start at the 3, or will it be Sasha? Gillis sure seems like he'll be the odd man out with the arrival of kaufman and furst. the same applies to IT at guard. but they provide something the Purdue football team will never have - they provide quality DEPTH !!!!
I'm not sad to see Carr and all these other players leave. but the reality is their departure creates the one deficiency brohm has never been able to fix. Quality - experienced depth. he has depth at WR. But if GK misses games, Purdue will be hurting. the drop-off between starters and bench is terrible. and brohm can no longer blame his predecessor for that lack of depth. the constant departure of non-starters, has created that void.
i also don't blame those two recruits for choosing auburn over purdue. Given a choice of two equal teams, great players usually pick the team with a winning tradition over the bad team that only offers them playing time. Elite players usually have enough confidence in themselves to be able to beat out competition. I have to believe Neal going undrafted was a huge factor. yes, it was neal's fault. but purdue's training and conditioning staff never got him back into playing at peak condition either.
one last thought. for those with bad memories. howard's rating was basically equal to the rating of that DT that chose to go to auburn. and you praised the recruit going to Auburn, and called him a top recruit ad a must have for our team. So if he doesn't pan out at auburn, will you say he was over rated too? I've noticed over the years, when players choose other schools over purdue, that purdue posters start losing their high predictions and praise for those players. But they praise incoming players as if they will be the next kerrigan or Light or brees, or moore or alstott.
my thoughts; very few of you have actually seen these new recruits in person. your basis of praise is based on what you read by some national rating service. maybe they are not as great as their rating. but that rating doesn't change just because they chose to go to a different school.
and who was that coach i wanted purdue to hire? my first choice was tressell. i believe it's been proven almost all coaches cheat to some degree. Purdue even had some coaches get caught. my second choice was not that LSU guy or the guy who rows boats. it was Terry Bowden. he was available. i'd really like to see purdue recruiting the same players other power 5 schools recruit. it saddens me when i see a top purdue recruit chose purdue over ball st and akron .
You seem to be quite defensive about weed usage. And the illegal drug trade (including weed) has resulted in the loss of as many innocent lives as alcohol. Just remember that if you're purchasing it illegally, your demand is contributing to the deaths of thousands in Central and North America. My usage of alcohol (responsibly) affects no one's life but my own.
A significant portion of the illicit marijuana was grown in the US. California and Kentucky especially.
Its about like watching my toddlers fight.
For as much as people give you crap (I have done so as well), not all that you say is off base. The depth Purdue loses is a concern. If Carr could have seen the vision of T.E., I too believe he had great potential. Tiller and staff had a great eye in talent as well as convincing them to transition to a position they'd be successful at Purdue and beyond. Matt Light comes to mind, but there were numerous players they transitioned and got them to see that same vision.There is an article on a rival web service that referred to him as a top recruit, and included several other power schools that offered him a scholarship.
it's obvious it didn't work out.
it's obvious several other top rated recruits didn't work out as well.
I have a couple of different takes.
the first is many posters here claimed our recruiting classes were awesome based on their ranking, and the rankings of the players at the time they were recruited. obviously, if those players did not remain or even contribute, their rating was not as high as fans hoped. and obviously, their recruiting class was not near as awesome as its rating. When you convert a Qb to Te, should his recruiting rating remain as high? I don't believe so. For the people who love math and formulas, if you remove the players who left and contributed nothing from that class rating, how far down does it fall? Subtract three 4 star recruits , and several more 3 star recruits and how low of a class rating do you have? when recruited, howard had a 3 star, 86 point ranking. his rating was higher than Grahm's and Graham was called a top recruit. . Piferi the year before had a 85.6 as a QB. Carr was 92. murphy was 90. faucheaux was 88. if you throw in the offensive linemen that left, and the other players that left, how bad were those recruiting classes? A little subtraction and division would most likely indicate the y were no better than a 50-75 ranking - much like the coach before him. what's teh difference between a coach who is a terrible recruiter, and one who has high recruiting class rankings, but those players never play for purdue?
my second take is people say these players are top recruits, based on what? how many people here actually saw Carr play? or howard play? or any of these other players play? isn't your opinion of these players basically made based on their internet ratings? and if those ratings are wrong, who is to say other internet ratings are also wrong? is grant as good as his rating was? Were anderson and taylor as good as their ratings? is Yaseen really that good? I'll admit, i don't know. But they sure had high ratings when they were recruited.
is it possible purdue's recruiting classes over the past 10 years were highly inflated? I'm not going to blame our coaching staff or our developmental staff for not developing these players. I'm beginning to believe these payers were just not as good as their ratings indicated. this makes me believe a better rating for a recruit is not his number or star rating, but rather the other schools who made him an offer. if purdue is the only power 5 school to make a player an offer, I have to wonder how great that player actually is. beating out ackron, Indiana st and ball st for a player doesn't give me a warm fuzzy about that player or his lofty recruiting ranking.
my third take is some people have a short memory and don't like reliving the past. many people praised the signing of howard when he first came to purdue as being a top player. and now because he didn't pan out and he's leaving, you label him as a juco and very seldom do JUCOS's ever work out and blah blah blah. Cam newton was a Juco. many great players were jucos. and when he first signed, being a JUCO didn't matter to you. You praised him. and thought he was a great addition. but now that he's leaving, all you have are negative comments about him. it would be nice if when you praise a player, and he doesn't work out, you own up to it, and admit, yes, i thought he'd be a great player and it just didn't work out. i was excited when Carr committed. i was excited when Taylor committed and when Fauchaeux committed. i also loved Hartwig. I'll admit, my assessment on howard was wrong. but it wasn't me who gave him his rating. howard WAS a top recruit when he came to purdue.
I thought with all of our quality Wrs, Carr could become an All American TE in much the same way several other former boilermakers became All American TEs. Purdue has a nice history of All American TEs who catch the ball and don't block. I'm not buying this story that Izzo promised he could play basketball. Carr was a 6'5 power forward in high school. No way will he see a minute of playing time for MSU basketball. and no way would he be a PF at purdue either. or for that matter, be a PF for any power 5 school. and you can't just transform from being a PF in high school to being a guard in college. carr was also a top recruit, but he became a cancer at purdue. he could have started at TE and become an all american at TE. and brohm has a lot of plays designed for TEs. Carr could have easily scored 10+ TDs and had 800+ yards as a TE. But Carr wanted to be a WR, and could not beat out the others to start. So he saw the future, and didn't want to be a back-up and left for wha t he believes will be greener pastures.
the problem with Carr leaving and not being able to crack our starting lineup is that other high school elite prospects will see this and think twice about coming to purdue. they see the success story of rondale moore being a star as a freshmen, and then see carr who was a much higher ranked recruit can't even break the starting lineup in his second year. Elite prospects don't like to go to schools and sit on the bench. That's why that TE came home to play for Illinois. he was a flop in the SEC.
my last point is i look at all these departures on the offensive line, defensive line, backfield, secondary, kicking game and other spots, and say , sure, these players were not starters. however, many of them including the offensive linemen started a couple of games and played in several others , and they did offer something. they offered DEPTH !!!!! for over 5 years, people on the board keep telling me it takes over 5 years to build depth. Well that 5 years came and left. and we still have zero depth at many of our key positions. and if a certain player is injured, or replacements are not close to the ability of our starters. and we can't build or sustain our depth, if our non-starters keep leaving. We desperately need these guys to stay. we need their experience. we can't keep redshirting players, and then saying good bye one year later. MSU is going to get Carr for 4 years. To have any hope of success, we need to keep our players even if they are not projected as starters. Look at purdue basketball. is edey going to start at center ? or will it be Furst or Williams? Will Williams start at the 4, or will it be Kaufman, or Gillis? Will kaufman start at the 3, or will it be Sasha? Gillis sure seems like he'll be the odd man out with the arrival of kaufman and furst. the same applies to IT at guard. but they provide something the Purdue football team will never have - they provide quality DEPTH !!!!
I'm not sad to see Carr and all these other players leave. but the reality is their departure creates the one deficiency brohm has never been able to fix. Quality - experienced depth. he has depth at WR. But if GK misses games, Purdue will be hurting. the drop-off between starters and bench is terrible. and brohm can no longer blame his predecessor for that lack of depth. the constant departure of non-starters, has created that void.
i also don't blame those two recruits for choosing auburn over purdue. Given a choice of two equal teams, great players usually pick the team with a winning tradition over the bad team that only offers them playing time. Elite players usually have enough confidence in themselves to be able to beat out competition. I have to believe Neal going undrafted was a huge factor. yes, it was neal's fault. but purdue's training and conditioning staff never got him back into playing at peak condition either.
one last thought. for those with bad memories. howard's rating was basically equal to the rating of that DT that chose to go to auburn. and you praised the recruit going to Auburn, and called him a top recruit ad a must have for our team. So if he doesn't pan out at auburn, will you say he was over rated too? I've noticed over the years, when players choose other schools over purdue, that purdue posters start losing their high predictions and praise for those players. But they praise incoming players as if they will be the next kerrigan or Light or brees, or moore or alstott.
my thoughts; very few of you have actually seen these new recruits in person. your basis of praise is based on what you read by some national rating service. maybe they are not as great as their rating. but that rating doesn't change just because they chose to go to a different school.
and who was that coach i wanted purdue to hire? my first choice was tressell. i believe it's been proven almost all coaches cheat to some degree. Purdue even had some coaches get caught. my second choice was not that LSU guy or the guy who rows boats. it was Terry Bowden. he was available. i'd really like to see purdue recruiting the same players other power 5 schools recruit. it saddens me when i see a top purdue recruit chose purdue over ball st and akron .
Wole ignored what Blkgold and i have said. None of the players were significantly losses with the possible exception of Carr. Word out of WL prior to his departure was he wasnt as good as billed and wasnt the best teammate. He likely wasnt going to be a starter for a while, if ever.
We have depth on the OL, perhaps more than weve had since Tiller.
Lol are you like 105? I’m generally vehemently against stupid ideas and opinions.. like that other moron thinking it matters that doctors like a certain pizza place unless they are doctors of pizza making
By the way.. I read some GD threads .. you seem to be a neocon. But you’re righteous? That’s priceless lol
it's a lot to dig through and make sense of lol but I feel like he was trying to address that piece. I think his argument is essentially 'sure they aren't difference makers, but they were originally billed as future difference makers, and in reality Purdue needed them to be difference makers to make a jump.' Which I mostly agree with. I think Purdue is better off without most of these guys so they can use the scholarship on guys who might one day be difference makers, but I don't think you can say it's a GOOD thing that a number of former 4 stars didn't pan out.
I dont think he was better than Doerue. If it werent for the depth issue, im not sure i would care.
Pretty much all weed is grown locally in the United States. This isn’t 1969 anymore. Sorry, but people who smoke weed are contributing very little, if any, to deaths of people from other countries and certainly not as much as alcohol.
Murphy was a 4*. Sad, but he and former recruiting coordinator set our RB position perilously thin last year.
Taking a risk on unreliable Murphy may have had a lot to do with Hodges departure. I do not know all the facts, but I wouldn't be surprised either. Didn't do the due diligence.
He was a 3 star on rivals.
Hodges departure had nothing to do with Murphy. Murphy left well after Hodges did.
i suspect the misses were piling up along with the hits that were not panning out including Murphy who had already had trouble upon the beginning of the season and opted out once in the dog house if I recall correctly.
Social media may have had a lot to do with departure and how he wasn't as focused as prior years.
A program like purdue is doing well if it hits at 50%. Holding misfires like Murphy against him are like holding Bushong (among others) against TIller. Its futile and ignores the reality of recruiting.
I think social media was part of it, although the role does require the person leverage twitter, intagram, etc.
Alright Nat100, "If you don't like it, meet me at locker #3!"
I hope you enjoyed that reference dug up from years ago.
37 days and counting to see at least 3 more Transfers coming in.
In general I would expect a much better than 50% hit rate on 4 star recruits. When you sign one you are pretty much announcing to other recruits that the position is set. And when they don't pan out you have a much bigger hole in your roster than when a 2 star doesn't pan out. Unfortunately our history suggests 50% hit rate may be optimistic. I think wakeman and others bring up a good point in that it is easy to say we won't miss a recruit simply because of where they were on the depth chart, but if they were the ONE RB or the ONE DT you were counting on in that class, it sets you back unless your 2 and 3 stars are performing at the level of a 4 star.
Last edited:
At this point, transfers for transfers sake arent worth it. Im sure we will see one. Im sure we will see more departures too.Alright Nat100, "If you don't like it, meet me at locker #3!"
I hope you enjoyed that reference dug up from years ago.
37 days and counting to see at least 3 more Transfers coming in.
The issue at RB is that we had several classes in a row where the player taken at the position didnt pan out. Evan Anderson left school due to family issues. Hewitt didnt develop. Murphy thought he was cheech and chong.
3 classes in a row is devastating.
With Faucheux, we have other players that he couldnt beat out, including a player that came in the class after him.
I don't think they will be transfers for transfer sake. I know they are working diligently for the Vandy RB Keyon Henry-Brooks. Not sure what the hold up is?
Peering into the portal and there seems to be a few quality OL available + DT as well. I see from headlines only that Purdue is working toward an LB. Hope Purdue finds the plug and play fit that can come in and help out right away.
We'll see how the 37 days and counting plays out and how much energy Brohm has. I for one hope they fill every slot left with a talented player that has performed already and can contribute right away. Work every hour till 11:59 pm of June 30th.
Very, very good point.
It's convenient, but what a number of people forget is how many high-profile recruits Tiller "missed" on.
There were many. If we were to go back and look, it would likely be discouraging... maybe even embarrassing... the number of highly-rated recruits who simply did not pan out.
And, as you point out, that's too common for a program like Purdue.
That's going to sting for a select few who, whether they admit it or not, are simply out to skewer Brohm at every opportunity.
40% of the weed consumed in the US comes from Mexico. So yes, you are supporting cartels. You can rationalize it all you want...
"Most of this finds it’s way into the United States, and Mexican weed makes up an estimated 40 percent of what we consume here in America."
Where Does Your Weed Come From? - Excessively
Have you ever wondered where does your weed come from? Who grows Afghani Kush, or Purple Diesel?
excessively.net
40% of the weed consumed in the US comes from Mexico. That's still a huge number and that money goes directly to cartels and their violence...
I'm not righteous. I just don't believe in supporting violence. What I find hypocritical are the weed smoking liberals (I'm not accusing you of being that) who want to talk about the border crisis being inhumane while contributing toward the root cause of the crisis...
Only on KHC can a thread of a JUCO transferring out, lead to Mexican Drug Cartels . Well done fellas, well done...
Liberals ? Liberal is a term for socially liberal fiscally conservative suburban professionals to me..
im a lefty .. you probably know very few actual lefties (think Jimmy dore, Glenn greenwald and a whole host of others who have to go on tucker Carlson because they aren’t welcome on msnbc).
the border is a terrible situation .. however, unlike liberals you know, I know that it was terrible that trump had kids in cages but Obama built those cages. The border has been consistent regardless of president since carter, but it was liberals who have ramped it up the most.
obama deported more immigrants than all other presidents combined.
my objection with you is that your posts on GD seemed to be hawkish.. kinda hard to justify Gaza and be mad because I DONT buy weed illegally lol. I buy at dispensaries
I would like to take credit for being the first to use the word "cartel".
100 internet points to me 🥳
Similar threads
