quote:
Now here you go doing what Madking does. We have Reed and Ward, then I guess you are counting Chest (97th ranked on 247 with zero college experience) and Collins in that "top 100 recruit" list?

Is it not correct that Collins and Chest were top 100 recruits as well? (At least by one ranking service).

It's seems like an equivocal argument to say things are looking great with what looks to be a good HS recruiting class...based solely on evaluation rankings, but then say the rankings are largely meaningless when discussing the talent level of veteran players.

That isn't a slight against McMahon. I think if people looked at the roster of ANY team and saw 7 of the 12 players on the roster were consider top 100 prospects when they came out of HS they would think there is some talent on the roster.

In year 1 people argued the dismal performance was the result of a roster with no talent. I disagree, but I can listen to that argument.

In year 2 there was improvement. But some still attributed any shortcoming to a lack of talent on the roster.

In year 3 he has what looks like (on paper) should be a roster talented enough to compete for a NCAA Tournament spot. All I'm saying is that if LSU fails to meet that relatively low level of expectations the "no talent" excuse starts to fall on deaf ears. Because at some point, after multiple year of evidence, you start to reach the conclusion that either (1) the HC can't bring in good enough players to have decent success or (2) the players he recruited are good but the lack of success is due to poor coaching. Either way, it falls back on the HC.

We disagree on a lot of arguments. And that's fine. At least someone is willing to discuss basketball. But don't you think at some point the HC has to show he can produce results? If not, then why keep spinning your wheels expecting something different?