‘23 NC WR Nathan Leacock (Tennessee)

#859
#859
They know they can only move him so much at a time without looking terrible. I bet he will end up top 100
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Smokey19rt
#862
#862
sjt18 said:
It isn't "the rule" if there are that many exceptions. Pretty much the crux of our argument over time.
Click to expand...

Wrong as usual. The rule always exists regardless of how many exceptions or outliers are present. But you keep up your ridiculous notions on recruiting.
 
#863
#863
BigOrangeTrain said:
Wrong as usual. The rule always exists regardless of how many exceptions or outliers are present.
Click to expand...
Um, no. If you say that 4 stars are more talented than 3 stars and then have 3 stars outplay 4 stars on a very regular basis... your "rule" has failed.

But you keep up your ridiculous notions on recruiting.
Click to expand...
Nothing ridiculous about it. If there were... you would actually address my points rather than deflecting and making personal attacks.

There may be other, better measures but I have not seen one. Each year more 3* will be drafted than 4/5* combined. About 80% of 4* won't be drafted. Again... that means your "rule" fails.

Leacock's talent is not dependent on whether he gets 4* or not. He was talented when UT discovered and offered him. Every bit as talented as he is now. However by your rule he would have been a lesser player had he not gotten that 4th star.
 
  • Like
Reactions: swampfoxfan, butchna, LoudOrange and 1 other person
#864
#864
sjt18 said:
Um, no. If you say that 4 stars are more talented than 3 stars and then have 3 stars outplay 4 stars on a very regular basis... your "rule" has failed.


Nothing ridiculous about it. If there were... you would actually address my points rather than deflecting and making personal attacks.

There may be other, better measures but I have not seen one. Each year more 3* will be drafted than 4/5* combined. About 80% of 4* won't be drafted. Again... that means your "rule" fails.

Leacock's talent is not dependent on whether he gets 4* or not. He was talented when UT discovered and offered him. Every bit as talented as he is now. However by your rule he would have been a lesser player had he not gotten that 4th star.
Click to expand...
Imagine a college roster consisted of all 3-stars, but they were all three stars that would get drafted.

What happens to the argument as to whether that team would have a shot at the playoff/title...
 
  • Like
Reactions: sjt18
#866
#866
sjt18 said:
Um, no. If you say that 4 stars are more talented than 3 stars and then have 3 stars outplay 4 stars on a very regular basis... your "rule" has failed.


Nothing ridiculous about it. If there were... you would actually address my points rather than deflecting and making personal attacks.

There may be other, better measures but I have not seen one. Each year more 3* will be drafted than 4/5* combined. About 80% of 4* won't be drafted. Again... that means your "rule" fails.

Leacock's talent is not dependent on whether he gets 4* or not. He was talented when UT discovered and offered him. Every bit as talented as he is now. However by your rule he would have been a lesser player had he not gotten that 4th star.
Click to expand...

Some will never get it, man.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LoudOrange and sjt18
#868
#868
Haven't seen Leacock's final stats from last night's 50-8 win over Wakefield, but in his highlights I count 5 TD receptions for 32, 58, 33, 12 & 31 yards (a couple of plays are shown twice from different angles)

8 catches for 201 yards & 4 TDs:

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: HeadVol77, bigl3327, volthruitall and 11 others
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top