1 chatters in TigerActive Chat   Go!  
Front Page » TigerNet Forums » Archives » Tiger Board Archive

Topic: Not looking good for Clemson
Replies: 46   Last Post: Feb 22, 2012 8:19 PM by: allorangeallthetime52®
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.



[ Archives - Tiger Board Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 46   Pages: 1  

Not looking good for Clemson

[4]
Posted: Jan 30, 2012 3:47 PM
 

I don't mind losing Bullard to FL, Marshall to UGA, or even McKinzy to Auburn, but now we are losing guys to NCST and Maryland?

I love this class and it is one of the strongest top to bottom that we have had since 2008, but dropping Whitehead to NCST and now it looks like Reader to Maryland is not how I expected to finish.

null


reader would be a disappointment, but cu never had the

[1]
Posted: Jan 30, 2012 3:50 PM
 

others.

top 10ish class is gonna be downplayed because cu might not get another commit b4 signing day?

i hope not.


You taking some tweet as gospel? If a tweet was official,

[2]
Posted: Jan 30, 2012 3:50 PM
 

then no need for signing day.


Re: You taking some tweet as gospel? If a tweet was official,

[2]
Posted: Jan 30, 2012 4:06 PM
 

Really? We have a top 15 class (with only 20 recruits) and your disappointed? You need to change your screen name to whatwesmokin! If we don't sign anymore recruits this year that is no big deal. It will give us more room next year. Right now we can only take 16-20 for next year. Some of you guys are just amazing!


Re: You taking some tweet as gospel? If a tweet was official,


Posted: Jan 30, 2012 5:26 PM
 

Wow overreact much? I said I loved the class but you don't recruit guys for no reason. The class as it stands is a huge success but that doesn't mean missing small peices isnt disappointing. If I only wanted to know the final ranking, I wouldn't follow recruiting. These guys we are missing on are positions of need for the most part. Will things be fine without them sure but if we do land them it would really help with depth.

null


Re:Hmmmmm, must be the shroons, or the bownies.


Posted: Feb 22, 2012 8:19 PM
 

hb


Reader will be a tiger


Posted: Jan 30, 2012 7:44 PM
 

I feel it


Re: You taking some tweet as gospel? If a tweet was official,


Posted: Feb 22, 2012 8:15 PM
 

Some on T-Net don't have a clue of what they are saying because. They want to say something ( acting like they know what their talking about ) on here so bad that they are just repeating what they have heard or read some where. And MOST of the time. The people who said or wrote what they are repeating. They didn't have a clue of what they were saying or writing either. Pit pat, tally wack, give the dog a bone. Take that BS some of you are hearing, and keep moving on.


Re: Not looking good for Clemson

[6]
Posted: Jan 30, 2012 4:04 PM
 

Last time I checked we have verbal commitments from 10 players rated as four stars by Rivals.

For comparison, there were only 6 programs in the country with more players than that rated four stars or better. There were only five other programs with as many as 10 players rated four star or better. Looks to me as if we are on track for another top 10-20 recruiting class.

When a kid compares going to school and playing at NCSU or Maryland to doing the same at Clemson and the kid then chooses the other places, I scratch my head, wonder why and then wish the kid good luck. Unless such a player has a family connection to the other school, that sort of choice makes very little sense to me. But good luck to all.

Harley


your glass seems half empty, son***


Posted: Jan 30, 2012 4:08 PM
 




Re: your glass seems half empty, son***


Posted: Jan 30, 2012 5:26 PM
 

Harley's posts are never half empty. Unlike me and a lot of others on here, he makes sense.


WHoa there hoss, I wouldn't go that far.***


Posted: Jan 30, 2012 4:07 PM
 



Success breeds complacency. Complacency breeds failure. Only the paranoid survive.


your glass seems half empty, son***


Posted: Jan 30, 2012 4:09 PM
 




if a fact is negative it doesn't make me negative to say it.


Posted: Jan 30, 2012 6:42 PM
 

its reality, it is what it is.


Re: Not looking good for Clemson

[2]
Posted: Jan 30, 2012 4:11 PM
 

Yeah, it's rough when you only have a top ten to top fifteen class. Not looking good at all. Clemson was much better when we were in the 30's.


If we don't get another commitment - it will only help


Posted: Jan 30, 2012 4:14 PM
 

us for 2013 because we will have a low number of openings available then unless we have several players transfer. I would rather hold on to who we have now and be able to get somebody really good next year unless we get someone to fill a real need at the last minute.


The Orange Bowl really hurt us more than most of us want to

[2]
Posted: Jan 30, 2012 4:16 PM
 

admit. Despite ACCC, credibility is lacking outside the "Clemson family".


maybe, but we changed dc also and lost no one.***


Posted: Jan 30, 2012 4:17 PM
 




Re: The Orange Bowl really hurt us more than most of us want to


Posted: Jan 30, 2012 4:24 PM
 

SURE AGREE!! that disaster will hurt us for years!! just no reason for that disgrace!!


Re: The Orange Bowl really hurt us more than most of us want to

[1]
Posted: Jan 30, 2012 8:15 PM
 

In 1980, Clemson went 6-5, having to pull an upset in the final game to avoid a losing season. How badly did that mediocre season hurt Clemson? So badly we went undefeated and won the National Championship the next year. Did it hurt us for years? I don't think so. The 1980's are still considered the Golden Years of Clemson football. The 2012 Orange Bowl will only continue to hurt us if we continue to dwell on it.


Re: The Orange Bowl really hurt us more than most of us want to

[1]
Posted: Jan 30, 2012 4:24 PM
 

If credibility is lacking,then why do we have a top 10 class?Think before you post.


If you think the Orange Bowl hurt us - then just how did we


Posted: Jan 30, 2012 4:31 PM
 

get a top 8 class after a 6-7 season? Reader wants early playing time & knows he won't get it. His father is pushing MD very hard.


Re: The Orange Bowl really hurt us more than most of us want to


Posted: Jan 30, 2012 4:27 PM
 

disagree on hurting recruiting, that should make some see D players seeing early playing time...now as to overall image, yes it hurt


Re: Has anyone changed their minds?***


Posted: Jan 30, 2012 5:51 PM
 




we haven't lost any commits but they haven't signed yet. and


Posted: Jan 30, 2012 6:46 PM
 

we have lost every commit we wanted since then. would be foolish to say the last 3rd of the season and the OB had no effect.


Re: we haven't lost any commits but they haven't signed yet. and


Posted: Jan 30, 2012 8:11 PM
 

It also would be unwise to say that it had a bigger effect then it really did.

The truth is that we never recruited Marshall, Gurly, or Davis hard after Brooks signed. He only did so late because we weren't sure about MB and Ellington looked to be going to the NFL. Marhsall and Gurly were always heavy UGA commites and that we got into the top three with either is actually pretty impressive.

Won't go into Mike Davis.

Bullard would have had to go to a jouni college if he came here so he chose Florida, smae thign might happen to Leamon.

Also as bad as we might have looked do you really think that any smart recruit would choose MD who only won 2 games this year is a better team to commit to than us?


typical tnet, as soon as a kid goes elsewhere the spin


Posted: Feb 1, 2012 3:47 AM
 

starts ... we didn't really want them, we stopped recruiting them, yadda yadda yadda. what lunacy.


Re: we haven't lost any commits but they haven't signed yet. and

[1]
Posted: Jan 30, 2012 8:12 PM
 

it would be foolish of you to say anything. really


Re: There is still hope for you. Maybe, four or five will


Posted: Jan 31, 2012 12:52 PM
 

change their minds. and go elsewhere.


i'm glad someone else gets it.***


Posted: Jan 30, 2012 6:43 PM
 




99% of the college football teams would kill for the class

[3]
Posted: Jan 30, 2012 4:39 PM
 

that we have coming in. You are upset about losing two 3 star recruits to NC State and MD???

It's not all about how you finish. We do our work early.


So there are upwards of 1000 college football teams now?***


Posted: Jan 30, 2012 4:54 PM
 




including my st louis rams?


Posted: Jan 30, 2012 5:00 PM
 

;)


Folks, we have a winner!***


Posted: Jan 30, 2012 4:58 PM
 




maybe 90% would be happy, the top 10% would take


Posted: Jan 30, 2012 7:45 PM
 

the class they have for sure. The next 10% probably wouldn't trade either, but the bottom 80% would trade in a heatbeat

leslie


How Dare You


Posted: Jan 30, 2012 11:30 PM
 

post something positive on this board!! The sky is falling all around you and you can't see it??


You guys are amazing


Posted: Jan 30, 2012 4:59 PM
 

I think all some people read are negatives. I said I love this class and it is the most complete since 08. I know we started strong but just like the season. Starting 8-0 doesn't make it feel any better to lose to NCST.

null


thats tnet, anything not over the top positive is seen as


Posted: Jan 30, 2012 6:48 PM
 

negative by the kool aid drinkers.


We're 7 in ESPN, 10 in Rivals and 12 in Scout. Those

[1]
Posted: Jan 30, 2012 4:59 PM
 

numbers are down 1 spot across the board from last week. I think we will end up with a class somewhere between 15-20 ranking. If we end up in the top-15, I will be very happy and consider it a good year recruiting. I expect others to pass us before the final rankings if we don't get another commit. Others will get good ones in the last days here.

I don't know how much the Orange Bowl played a part in not getting any commits in January, but it didn't help. I really don't think it played that big a part. I fully expected to get Reader and if he chooses that mess in Maryland over us, then so be it. I was not surprised that we didn't get Marshall, and a little surprised we didn;t get Bullard. But the most disappointing was losing Gerley to Georgia with him knowing that he'll just have to stand in line to even get reps in practice. That was not good.

As for these Darby, McKenzie and the ones that visited for the first time in the last week or so, I knew those were all longshots.


Re: Not looking good for Clemson


Posted: Jan 30, 2012 5:35 PM
 

I thought we had a great recruiting class when AE decided to stay one more year. Can you put a value (in STARS) on how great that is? He's way past a 5*. Maybe like several 5*'s in one guy.

Everyone else is icing on the cake.

PLUS - we got BV for DC, so IMO we will be AOK. :) JK


Re: Not looking good for Clemson


Posted: Jan 30, 2012 5:48 PM
 

We are losing Reader because of baseball not losing the Orange bowl


Re:You win some: you lose some. Life goes on. Better


Posted: Jan 30, 2012 5:49 PM
 

learn to live with it.


Dabo will pull in


Posted: Jan 30, 2012 6:46 PM
 

at least 2 more quality recruits on signing day. Look at his history. Have all of you forgotten how strong of a closer he is.


You are out of your mind


Posted: Jan 30, 2012 7:39 PM
 

Top 15 class, stop whining. We only want guys that want to be here.


Re: You are out of your mind


Posted: Jan 30, 2012 11:06 PM
 

I agree with this guy. We have a strong class and have you seen our targets for 2013? I'd rather have more spots for the apparently top 5 recruiting class next year.

Montravious, Rochell, Jones, Fulwood...all monsters.


How is that Boise St recruiting


Posted: Jan 30, 2012 11:24 PM
 

Class. How bout the VT class? Time to coach what we get up.


What?


Posted: Jan 30, 2012 11:31 PM
 

We lose recruits to those schools every year. Thats just how it works, you can't get everybody.


Replies: 46   Pages: 1  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Kent State
FOR SALE: 2 40 yard line South Upper Deck tickets and STI parking pass. TDE, Row S, Seats 18,20. STI is grea...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Board Archive ]
Start New Topic
7017 people have read this post