kchusker_chris Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Looks like Mizzou has two commits on the list too. There's also 7 (MO) & 4 (IL) recruits on that list. (NE)=0 Unfortunately, Missouri is becoming a fairly solid state for talent. Throw in East St. Louis and Pinkly has half a class of 4 & 5 stars within a 15-25 minute helicopter ride. Missouri has always been a solid state for talent. That's why TO has always said that Mizzou was a sleeping giant. If they ever are able to close the borders in recruiting, then they will be very good. For all his warts, Pinkel has done an excellent job in that regard. And that hurts Nebraska doubly because it also drains them of a region that used to be ripe for Nebraska's picking. We still get guys from Missouri (like Rome, Compton, McNeill, Brooks, etc.), but it's now a battle to get them out of Mizzou's paws. Sleeping giant is a bit of a stretch, I'd go more w/ stoned midget. Generally high and inebriated (< 2003), a stoned midget often wakes up hungry. This leads to short outburts of ankle biting and a general pain in the a$$ stretch of livelyhood (2003-2008) - fortunately it's quickly followed by another mellow stretch of emptyness (2009-*) (MO) Recruits in top 250 2010 - 3 2009 - 3 2008 - 1 (b. gabbert) 2007 - 4 2006 - 2 (j. freeman) Quote Link to comment
HuskerBruin Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Looks like Mizzou has two commits on the list too. There's also 7 (MO) & 4 (IL) recruits on that list. (NE)=0 Unfortunately, Missouri is becoming a fairly solid state for talent. Throw in East St. Louis and Pinkly has half a class of 4 & 5 stars within a 15-25 minute helicopter ride. Missouri has always been a solid state for talent. That's why TO has always said that Mizzou was a sleeping giant. If they ever are able to close the borders in recruiting, then they will be very good. For all his warts, Pinkel has done an excellent job in that regard. And that hurts Nebraska doubly because it also drains them of a region that used to be ripe for Nebraska's picking. We still get guys from Missouri (like Rome, Compton, McNeill, Brooks, etc.), but it's now a battle to get them out of Mizzou's paws. Sleeping giant is a bit of a stretch, I'd go more w/ stoned midget. Generally high and inebriated (< 2003), a stoned midget often wakes up hungry. This leads to short outburts of ankle biting and a general pain in the a$$ stretch of livelyhood (2005-2008) - fortunately it's quickly followed by another mellow stretch of emptyness (2009-*) (MO) Recruits in top 250 2010 - 3 2009 - 3 2008 - 1 (b. gabbert) 2007 - 4 2006 - 2 (j. freeman) Again, those were TO's words. I'm sure he didn't mean they would be the next Florida, Miami or USC, but I do think he meant that they would be a serious force to be reckoned with in conference play. My point is that I think TO's comment suggests that Missouri didn't all of a sudden get talented recruits in the last few years. They have always had a lot of talent in the state. Pretty much everyone knows that. Quote Link to comment
ESPY Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Begs to ask if you can name a few of the best recruits we've ever gotten from MO. Quote Link to comment
carlfense Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Begs to ask if you can name a few of the best recruits we've ever gotten from MO. Grant Wistrom would probably head that list... Quote Link to comment
HuskerBruin Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Begs to ask if you can name a few of the best recruits we've ever gotten from MO. Grant Wistrom would probably head that list... Off the top of my head, Grant Wistrom (as carlfense mentioned), Mike Rucker, Steve Warren, Dan Alexander and current Huskers like McNeill, Compton, Brandon Kinnie and Keith Williams. Quote Link to comment
blackshirts5115 Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 why is it when i look at the Rivals250 to watch for 2011, the names are all in alphabetical order by position? but when i click on a player, like Tyler Moore for instance, his page shows him as the 243rd ranked player in the nation for 2011. Some others: Aaron Green- 2 Jamal Turner- 121 Christian Westerman- 53 Why don't they just order them by rank instead alphabetical by position? kinda bothers me Quote Link to comment
Nexus Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 why is it when i look at the Rivals250 to watch for 2011, the names are all in alphabetical order by position? but when i click on a player, like Tyler Moore for instance, his page shows him as the 243rd ranked player in the nation for 2011. Some others: Aaron Green- 2 Jamal Turner- 121 Christian Westerman- 53 Why don't they just order them by rank instead alphabetical by position? kinda bothers me The official Rivals rankings don't come out until later. Quote Link to comment
mdhusker2010 Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 They did in alphabetical order by first name... dont know why but they did Quote Link to comment
blackshirts5115 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 why is it when i look at the Rivals250 to watch for 2011, the names are all in alphabetical order by position? but when i click on a player, like Tyler Moore for instance, his page shows him as the 243rd ranked player in the nation for 2011. Some others: Aaron Green- 2 Jamal Turner- 121 Christian Westerman- 53 Why don't they just order them by rank instead alphabetical by position? kinda bothers me The official Rivals rankings don't come out until later. Then why does each player's profile have a national ranking on it? Quote Link to comment
blackshirts5115 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 They did in alphabetical order by first name... dont know why but they did Ok I get it now. I thought you meant the list was alphabetical by first name, but now i understand. wonder why they did that... Quote Link to comment
Nexus Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 why is it when i look at the Rivals250 to watch for 2011, the names are all in alphabetical order by position? but when i click on a player, like Tyler Moore for instance, his page shows him as the 243rd ranked player in the nation for 2011. Some others: Aaron Green- 2 Jamal Turner- 121 Christian Westerman- 53 Why don't they just order them by rank instead alphabetical by position? kinda bothers me The official Rivals rankings don't come out until later. Then why does each player's profile have a national ranking on it? Where are you seeing their national ranking at? I'm not seeing it. See screenshot below. Quote Link to comment
mitch7 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 click on aaron green's profile and right under that black box that has the stars it will say..... MORE RANKINGS Rivals.com Rivals250 to Watch 2011 (2) Rankings index » Quote Link to comment
Nexus Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 click on aaron green's profile and right under that black box that has the stars it will say..... MORE RANKINGS Rivals.com Rivals250 to Watch 2011 (2) Rankings index » Thanks. My guess would be that those are preliminary rankings? Quote Link to comment
Eric Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Click into a players profile and look to the right below the black box. It says: MORE RANKINGS * Rivals.com Rivals250 to Watch 2011 (53) Rankings index » I don't know what the number means though. Obviously Westerman is higher than #53 Quote Link to comment
typ3kal Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 click on aaron green's profile and right under that black box that has the stars it will say..... MORE RANKINGS Rivals.com Rivals250 to Watch 2011 (2) Rankings index » Thanks. My guess would be that those are preliminary rankings? You guys are really dumbfounded? I'll give you a clue. 1. A.J. Johnson 2. Aaron Green 3. Aaron Morris It's a watch list assigned by alphabetical.. 1 Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.