MJ Anderson Commits!

[Sour1729]

Just poking the Fleckites who loudly stated that Fleck was going to bring in great recruits that were far better than what Kill and Claeys were bringing in. Yet, Fleck brings in the same 3 star recruits as Kill and Claeys.
I have no problem with the recruits. I think it's what UMN can legitimately land. I simply poke the bear. Take my comments as such.

"My entire purpose is to try and anger people on a message board."

That is the definition of trolling. Do you get some sort of pleasure in angering others? Not calling you a sociopath, but trying to get your jollies by knowingly pissing off others is some bizarre antisocial behavior. It does not add value to the board or community, and hopefully the moderators see that and act accordingly.

 

[MennoSota]

The recruits are seen as better on recruiting services and offer lists, but there's no way to guage if any of that translates. I get your skepticism and trollish posts but until MJ goes out and lays a dud, the brash behavior does nobody here any good. There's nothing wrong with being positive.

I have nothing against Mr Anderson (other than the matrix). I hope he becomes All Big Ten and goes on to become a star in the NFL. I hope that all our players do well in life and I am glad to see them pick UMN. They are being offered a great opportunity in life. I hope they take full advantage of this opportunity.

 

[Dano564]

I agree. The star system doesn't matter...except to the Fleckites who promised elite recruits who would be much greater than any recruits we've ever had. Even now I read how the last two recruiting cycles are the greatest recruiting classes that UMN has ever had in the history of UMN.
Really? Some people actually think we are doing better than our national championship teams? It is to that subset of fans that I post my 3[emoji294]U references.
To the sane posters, you recognize that the star system is merely an arbitrary system and four years of teaching by excellent coaching can turn low rated players into NFL veterans.
So, take my comments as directed at the folks who struggle to think outside the star system.

I believe it's top rates classes since they've done internet rankings.
Internet wasn't broadly available during those Championship seasons.

 

[Dano564]

Glad my goal on this forum isn't to go find every recruiting thread and post sarcastic "3-star" hype.

Trying to determine what type of person decides to try to derail a thread congratulating a 17-18 year old kid on choosing a college into a argument about ranking systems.

 

[MennoSota]

"My entire purpose is to try and anger people on a message board."

That is the definition of trolling. Do you get some sort of pleasure in angering others? Not calling you a sociopath, but trying to get your jollies by knowingly pissing off others is some bizarre antisocial behavior. It does not add value to the board or community, and hopefully the moderators see that and act accordingly.

I do smile and chuckle when unrealistic fans get their cackles up. It's fun to see them blow a cork when their silly beliefs are picked on. It's like a good SNL skit that plays on stereotypes such as Donald Trump. Most people laugh at the fun that is made of America's first Oompa Loompa President, but the diehard (go to the OT) fans get upset cause they don't see the humor.
I see nothing wrong with a bit of fun loving trolling. Ya just need to lighten up Francis. [emoji41]

 

[MennoSota]

Glad my goal on this forum isn't to go find every recruiting thread and post sarcastic "3-star" hype.

Trying to determine what type of person decides to try to derail a thread congratulating a 17-18 year old kid on choosing a college into a argument about ranking systems.

This kinda person...[emoji41]

 

[Dano564]

This kinda person...[emoji41]

Exactly what I suspected!

 

[MennoSota]

Exactly what I suspected!

You're a frickin genius! [emoji322][emoji323][emoji324][emoji512]

 

[Pompous Elitist]

"My entire purpose is to try and anger people on a message board."

That is the definition of trolling. Do you get some sort of pleasure in angering others? Not calling you a sociopath, but trying to get your jollies by knowingly pissing off others is some bizarre antisocial behavior. It does not add value to the board or community, and hopefully the moderators see that and act accordingly.

It’s a joke, which some get and some are curiously really offended by for some reason. It’s just a game.

 

[bemidjigopher]

I do smile and chuckle when unrealistic fans get their cackles up. It's fun to see them blow a cork when their silly beliefs are picked on. It's like a good SNL skit that plays on stereotypes such as Donald Trump. Most people laugh at the fun that is made of America's first Oompa Loompa President, but the diehard (go to the OT) fans get upset cause they don't see the humor.
I see nothing wrong with a bit of fun loving trolling. Ya just need to lighten up Francis. [emoji41]

His name is sour

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

His name is sour

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[emoji106]

 

[husker70]

After all moderators he is a Doctor.

 

[FredCoxRocks]

I do smile and chuckle when unrealistic fans get their cackles up. It's fun to see them blow a cork when their silly beliefs are picked on. It's like a good SNL skit that plays on stereotypes such as Donald Trump. Most people laugh at the fun that is made of America's first Oompa Loompa President, but the diehard (go to the OT) fans get upset cause they don't see the humor.
I see nothing wrong with a bit of fun loving trolling. Ya just need to lighten up Francis. [emoji41]

You lost all credibility when you mentioned "a good SNL skit".

 

[alchemy2u]

"My entire purpose is to try and anger people on a message board."

That is the definition of trolling. Do you get some sort of pleasure in angering others? Not calling you a sociopath, but trying to get your jollies by knowingly pissing off others is some bizarre antisocial behavior. It does not add value to the board or community, and hopefully the moderators see that and act accordingly.

Correct. He is so juvenile in think his “pokes” are humorous. He has had threads and pictures erased because they were so offensive. Once in a while the squirrel will find a nut and make a contribution, but he can’t help himself in trying to annoy everyone. When he eventually grows up, he will learn that if he is the only one laughing then it isn’t funny.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[alchemy2u]

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

You lost all credibility when you mentioned "a good SNL skit".

LOL, my apologies for the faux pas. [emoji56]

 

[short ornery norwegian]

in a weird way, the Flecksters are proving Menno's point.

They say - Fleck's recruits are better than previous classes. And yet - the vast majority of Fleck's recruits have been 3-star recruits. Just like the vast majority of the Kill/Claeys era recruits were 3-star recruits.

So, the argument boils down to: Fleck's 3-star recruits are better than the Kill/Claeys era 3-star recruits.

If you want to get into the numerical ratings, that may be accurate. (assuming you accept the premise that a recruit with a .86 rating is better than a recruit with a .84 rating) but, at some level, you're still saying that one 3-star recruit is better than another 3-star recruit.

Which, to me, is some form of absurdist humor. It's like a Monty Python sketch.

 

[Pete smith]

in a weird way, the Flecksters are proving Menno's point.

They say - Fleck's recruits are better than previous classes. And yet - the vast majority of Fleck's recruits have been 3-star recruits. Just like the vast majority of the Kill/Claeys era recruits were 3-star recruits.

So, the argument boils down to: Fleck's 3-star recruits are better than the Kill/Claeys era 3-star recruits.

If you want to get into the numerical ratings, that may be accurate. (assuming you accept the premise that a recruit with a .86 rating is better than a recruit with a .84 rating) but, at some level, you're still saying that one 3-star recruit is better than another 3-star recruit.

Which, to me, is some form of absurdist humor. It's like a Monty Python sketch.

Just watch the the tapes. A 3 star today was a 4 star 3 years ago. When have we ever beat out Mich. State, ND, numerous SEC, for a defensive recruit?

 

[#2Gopher]

Welcome to Minnesota! In my opinion you're a 5 star recruit! Never mind the folks who underestimated you!

 

[Word]

Just watch the the tapes. A 3 star today was a 4 star 3 years ago. When have we ever beat out Mich. State, ND, numerous SEC, for a defensive recruit?

2016 - Carter Coughlin - https://n.rivals.com/content/prospects/2016/carter-coughlin-386#school-interests

That's the most recent one I can think of. Pretty impressive offer list.

 

[PoockItInfor6]

If you pay so little of attention to recruiting you can’t tell the difference between the classes we are getting under PJ and the classes we got under Kill, that by all means is your right (I mostly credit Claeys/Sawvel, but our defensive guys were really coached up well). However to then go post on numerous recruiting threads proving your ignorance... Just seems counter productive. If you care about recruiting before players are on campus, information is quite readily available in this day and age. If you don’t care about recruiting, that’s certainly reasonable as there are plenty of things out there to do. For those that think 3 stars are all the same, be aware that historic Purdue and Wisconsin both get 90-95 percent 3 stars, but there has historically certainly been a difference in those 3 stars.

 

[PoockItInfor6]

If you pay so little of attention to recruiting you can’t tell the difference between the classes we are getting under PJ and the classes we got under Kill, that by all means is your right (I mostly credit Claeys/Sawvel, but our defensive guys were really coached up well). However to then go post on numerous recruiting threads proving your ignorance... Just seems counter productive. If you care about recruiting before players are on campus, information is quite readily available in this day and age. If you don’t care about recruiting, that’s certainly reasonable as there are plenty of things out there to do. For those that think 3 stars are all the same, be aware that historic Purdue and Wisconsin both get 90-95 percent 3 stars, but there has historically certainly been a difference in those 3 stars.

The Empire class was really good, but much of the credit for that class goes to Coughlin, for both staying home and recruiting the other in state kids.

 

[PoockItInfor6]

The Empire class was really good, but much of the credit for that class goes to Coughlin, for both staying home and recruiting the other in state kids.

Welcome MJ! I can’t wait to see what you and our program have in store in the coming years!

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

in a weird way, the Flecksters are proving Menno's point.

They say - Fleck's recruits are better than previous classes. And yet - the vast majority of Fleck's recruits have been 3-star recruits. Just like the vast majority of the Kill/Claeys era recruits were 3-star recruits.

So, the argument boils down to: Fleck's 3-star recruits are better than the Kill/Claeys era 3-star recruits.

If you want to get into the numerical ratings, that may be accurate. (assuming you accept the premise that a recruit with a .86 rating is better than a recruit with a .84 rating) but, at some level, you're still saying that one 3-star recruit is better than another 3-star recruit.

Which, to me, is some form of absurdist humor. It's like a Monty Python sketch.

What is the value that counts then? A 4 but not 3.99 or something like it?

 

[caliGopher]

in a weird way, the Flecksters are proving Menno's point.

They say - Fleck's recruits are better than previous classes. And yet - the vast majority of Fleck's recruits have been 3-star recruits. Just like the vast majority of the Kill/Claeys era recruits were 3-star recruits.

So, the argument boils down to: Fleck's 3-star recruits are better than the Kill/Claeys era 3-star recruits.

If you want to get into the numerical ratings, that may be accurate. (assuming you accept the premise that a recruit with a .86 rating is better than a recruit with a .84 rating) but, at some level, you're still saying that one 3-star recruit is better than another 3-star recruit.

Which, to me, is some form of absurdist humor. It's like a Monty Python sketch.

It also assumes a .84 today is the same as a .84 last season, and the season before that one, and so on. It also doesn't acknowledge that recruiting in general is very different today than it was 5 years ago.

It should not detract from the fact that this is a guy Fleck wanted and we got him. Fleck has all but said he can't win without his guys, so here's one more of his guys. Looking forward to what happens over the next few years.

 

[hungan1]

First of all, I like to welcome MJ Anderson to the Gopher family.

Congratulations young man!

Off-topic discussion on recruiting talent level has been moved into its own thread.

 

[denguegopher]

Welcome Mr Anderson! IIRC he is from the same high school as 1970's Gopher linebacker Desi Williamson.

 

[Dano564]

in a weird way, the Flecksters are proving Menno's point.

They say - Fleck's recruits are better than previous classes. And yet - the vast majority of Fleck's recruits have been 3-star recruits. Just like the vast majority of the Kill/Claeys era recruits were 3-star recruits.

So, the argument boils down to: Fleck's 3-star recruits are better than the Kill/Claeys era 3-star recruits.

If you want to get into the numerical ratings, that may be accurate. (assuming you accept the premise that a recruit with a .86 rating is better than a recruit with a .84 rating) but, at some level, you're still saying that one 3-star recruit is better than another 3-star recruit.

Which, to me, is some form of absurdist humor. It's like a Monty Python sketch.

Metrics seem to indicate Fleck is doing a better job of recruiting.
The only one that doesn't is the broad "star" categories where a large chunk of people are 3 star, despite not being equal.

It's like taking a social economic index, and take away the top 10% of the wealthiest, and take away the bottom 40% of the least wealthy, and then taking everything in between from the 41st percentile to 90th percentile and group that all as "3 stars".

All of those people can be "3 stars" but they aren't all going to have the same net worth now or the same earning potential to increase net worth over the next 4 years.

 

[GraniteCityGopher]

Yes, welcome MJ.

As for those of you engaging in recruiting "Star Wars", it seems to come down to whether you believe PJ's approach will get more out of his 3 stars than Jerry got out of his?

 

[goldenboy]

Whatever happened to Drew Himeliewski? Transfer.
He's not on the roster.