re: La. recruits signed by Bama from 2007-2013.

quote:

---

the problem is in thinking its a bad thing or a good thing. Its not a good thing to not get players from your home state you want, but that doesn't make it a bad thing. 2 of the top 3 players from Alabama signed out of state last year. Is that a bad thing?

LINK
The point is to get 85 good football players. Now, most people go to college close to where they live and when you have a state with as much talent as La, it gives you a huge advantage toward having a good football team as long as you get MOST of the top players, which we do. That said, if you do not get all the top 25 players from the state, then you need to get good players from other states. Which frankly the current staff has done better than any previous LSU staff.

---

I don't disagree with much of what you've said here. I merely disagree with the rabid refusal to see that losing top in-state recruits to Bama - in isolation, by itself - is a bad thing. The OP merely pointed out the trend, he never said that LSU was doomed. His basic, discrete point is correct.

Also, let me address your "replacement" argument. Obviously, you know that our staff has its own ranking of recruits. Collins was ahead of Thompson on our own boards. Our own coaches preferred Collins. So I am not going to celebrate or pretend that there isn't a drop-off in talent when we have to replace one player with another who is lower on our own boards! Thompson may be a nice player in the absolute, but even our staff thoought Collins was better. Hence, I have to believe that LSU would have been better off getting Collins. This is only reasonable. And that is merely one example. Naturally, there are others.

Finally, to your Alabama in-state analogy, if Miles were assembling perennial number one consensus classes, I would naturally be less concerned about losing in-state talent. But that certainly wasn't true last year, when we finished outside the top ten.

quote:

---

The312

---

Of all these recruits the only one that hurts is Collins. We know that, but whatever move on. we all know Lacy's story too.

quote:

---

I merely disagree with the rabid refusal to see that losing top in-state recruits to Bama - in isolation, by itself - is a bad thing.

---

Why? First of all, we aren't "losing" these recruits. They don't belong to us. They are individuals who have every right to go wherever they want. But even so, why is "losing" a recruit to Bama worse than losing one to USC? Or to Texas, or Ole Miss, or Pitt, or any other of the 100+ schools. It's LSU against the field, that's it. The overall hangup on Bama amongst LSU fans is unreal. Our team is the only one I care about. After us, there is everyone else. Stop making the only important thing to be LSU vs. Bama. We are playing against the field. The only people who get upset about "loosing" recruits to Bama are those who already are obsessed with Bama. They are the ones who would rather we beat Bama than win the National Championship, and I just don't get it

quote:

---

. A couple go to Tenn. One goes to USCe

---

these teams suck, why would a good player go there over bama?

quote:

---

Our own coaches preferred Collins. So I am not going to celebrate or pretend that there isn't a drop-off in talent when we have to replace one player with another who is lower on our own boards! Thompson may be a nice player in the absolute, but even our staff thoought Collins was better. Hence, I have to believe that LSU would have been better off getting Collins

---

This gets to the whole heart of your problem. You see everyhing as a ranking, a list an absolute. 10>9 always and forever. Collins is ranked higher so you treat it as an absolute. Maybe he is better, how much difference will it make? The reality is probably not much. But you live in the theoretical world, not the real world. The chances that there is 1 play that Landon collins can make that corey thompson can not and that play will be the difference between winning or losing a game is highly, highly unlikely. As i also said, Dre Kirkpatrick was a 5*, Caliborne was a 3*. I'm sure every one, including the LSU staff would have rather had DK over MC.

quote:

---

if Miles were assembling perennial number one consensus classes, I would naturally be less concerned about losing in-state talent. But that certainly wasn't true last year, when we finished outside the top ten

---

We have been consistently in the top 5-10. Last years class was ranked lower on some sites, at least 1 had it #7, because the others were not counting Hill.

quote:

---

Why? First of all, we aren't "losing" these recruits. They don't belong to us. They are individuals who have every right to go wherever they want. But even so, why is "losing" a recruit to Bama worse than losing one to USC? Or to Texas, or Ole Miss, or Pitt, or any other of the 100+ schools.

---

Come on, funnystuff, the answer to this one is obvious. Since Alabama is in our division of our conference, it's worse to cede recruits to them because we have face those players each and every year. Put another way, losing the in-state recruits to Bama weakens LSU and strengthens our primary divisional rival. That isn't the case with Pitt or Texas or USC. I agree that regularly losing highly touted in-state recruits to Ole Miss, Arkansas, and other SEC West teams would also be a shitty outcome.

quote:

---

Put another way, losing the in-state recruits to Bama weakens LSU and strengthens our primary divisional rival

---

While I 100% agree it would be better for La recruits to sign out of the SEC, so we do not have to face them, this is 100% wrong and yet another example of your flawed, absolutist thinking.

If you haven't figured out that 75% of the RB success at Alabama is due to their offensive line, I can't help you

LSU has RBs just as good as lacy

The only thing Saban has really hurt LSU in (recruiting wise, for now) is mobile