Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

ChampBailey24

Members
  • Content Count

    4,736
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About ChampBailey24

  • Rank
    Footballguy
  • Birthday 10/30/1990

Contact Methods

  • MSN
    thomasdesroches@gmail.com
  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Montreal

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Philadelphia Eagles

Recent Profile Visitors

10,176 profile views
  1. Hmm. Interesting, I believe I just read that the average weight for women is 160. Vonn looks just fine. That's about the best built 160 you'd probably ever see on a woman.Yeah, 160 might be the average when they're in their 40s and don't exercize.
  2. I'm heavier than 160 by a comfortable margin. But anything over 140 is too much. 5'10 or not.You can't go by weight when you are looking at an athlete. Muscle weighs more than fat. You think the avg chick who weighs 160 would have a flat stomach like Vonn?So she's got huge shoulders and thighs. Cool.Muscular shoulders and thighs, not huge shoulders and thighs. Big difference.They're both muscular and huge.
  3. You sure can tell in this thread which male posters weigh <160 lbs themselves.I'm heavier than 160 by a comfortable margin. But anything over 140 is too much. 5'10 or not.You can't go by weight when you are looking at an athlete. Muscle weighs more than fat. You think the avg chick who weighs 160 would have a flat stomach like Vonn?So she's got huge shoulders and thighs. Cool.
  4. You sure can tell in this thread which male posters weigh <160 lbs themselves.I'm heavier than 160 by a comfortable margin. But anything over 140 is too much. 5'10 or not.You and I would be perfect wingmen for each other at a bar. Man, you haven't lived until you've ridden a women with dimensions like this. I know spinners are popular, but they are oh so ever fragile. A girl like this you could have sex with Basic Instinct style and later ask her to move your furniture. I would absolutely tear me up some Lindsey Vonn. But hey, I rated her a 6-6.5 so I'd hit it. Just wouldn't brag about it if she wasn't an olympian. And lol @ the bolded part.
  5. You sure can tell in this thread which male posters weigh <160 lbs themselves.I'm heavier than 160 by a comfortable margin. But anything over 140 is too much. 5'10 or not.
  6. About a 6.5. She's large. And 160 pounds on a woman is just too much.
  7. I've never said they were bull####. I've said they aren't what a lot of people want them to be. That you feel you need to justify them with the rationalization above should tell you there is much more to success. I've never said they are worthless, but I do believe having all these ranking sites and people sitting on pins and needles on "national signing day" to see how good the class is over does it. Recruiting is one of probably 20 factors that goes into a team's success and I'd probably put the rankings in the 11-15 range when it comes to importance.. I've not nitpicked anyything, or you have a different definition than I do. When you give me a stat where 30-40% of the top 10 are the exception to your point, maybe you should find another source or clarify your position better. Again, there are a TON of factors that go into the success of a program. I just don't think this one is as important as a lot of folks want it to be and pointing out a team's success isn't going to convince me of that until you can keep everything besides recruiting constant, which you can't. The top 10 in winning percentage, not success. Are you saying that because a Pee-Wee team won more games than say the Tigers last year that they're better? Because that's exactly what you're doing when including TCU and Boise State in your top 10. And I don't know why you said OSU wasn't recruiting as well as the elites anyways. The only valid example in that top 10 was VT and VT is never elite. They're a 9-11 wins team, not a 12-13 wins team. They're constantly very good, but never great. Just because I had to debunk invalid arguments doesn't mean that I'm forced to justify the recruiting rankings.
  8. The first example that came to your mind was one that actually proved the opposite of what you're arguing.As for UGA, that's gotten them the 9th best record in the NCAA in the 2000s. We should probably level set at this point. What does this mean to you?? I think that meant two conference titles and 2-3 bcs bowl wins (I remember one agaist WVU and the most recent one against Hawaii)I'm talking about this. 9th best winning % in the 2000s. And yes, that = 2 conference titles and 2 BCS Bowl Wins. Considering that LSU, Florida, Tennessee, Alabama and Auburn have all recruited at a similar level and that Georgia has won 2 conference titles in 10 years under Mark Richt, it looks like the recruiting rankings were fairly accurate. Btw, UGA was blown out against WVU. They beat Hawaii and FSU.I am asking what this stat means to you because when you have teams like Boise State, VT (good team, doesn't usually enter the top 10 for classes), TCU and OSU (who's consistantly top 15, but not always top 10) it seems like it doesn't mean much. Some of them are RARELY if ever in the top 10 recruiting. Trying to understand what it means to you.Boise State and TCU are in there because they don't play in a BCS conference. They wouldn't be in the Top 25 if they were, unless it was in the Big East. As for VT, I think Rivals' evulations of the Midwest (Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan) and Virgnia sucks. VT has been getting a lot of 5.7 kids (right below 4* status) and that's allowed them to be solid. They've also benefitted from weak Miami and FSU teams and though their winning % is good, they don't really contend for NCs. They're a perennial 10 wins team, which is very good but not elite. And OSU finished with a bad class this year but they're normally Top 10. There's not much difference between the 8th and the 15h class anyways. Again, you're picking specific exceptions to show why recruiting rankings. That right there shows that they're pretty accurate since you have to nitpick to prove that they're bull####. And no one's saying they're perfect. They all have their strenghts and flaws. ESPN puts way too much emphasis on the states of Texas and Florida and not enough in the Midwest and California. Scout puts too much emphasis on the Midwest and Rivals puts too much emphasis on the Big 3 and the South (which is at least better than the others, they cover a bigger area pretty well) but completely ignore the Midwest. Recruting rankings are not an exact science but they're a pretty good indicator of success.
  9. It was the first one that came to mind There are plenty of other examples you could use.ETA: If you want a better example, look at UGA. I beleive they have had a "rivals" recruiting class in the top 10 every year since like 2001 or 02. What has that gotten them? The first example that came to your mind was one that actually proved the opposite of what you're arguing.As for UGA, that's gotten them the 9th best record in the NCAA in the 2000s. We should probably level set at this point. What does this mean to you?? I think that meant two conference titles and 2-3 bcs bowl wins (I remember one agaist WVU and the most recent one against Hawaii)I'm talking about this. 9th best winning % in the 2000s. And yes, that = 2 conference titles and 2 BCS Bowl Wins. Considering that LSU, Florida, Tennessee, Alabama and Auburn have all recruited at a similar level and that Georgia has won 2 conference titles in 10 years under Mark Richt, it looks like the recruiting rankings were fairly accurate. Btw, UGA was blown out against WVU. They beat Hawaii and FSU.
  10. It was the first one that came to mind There are plenty of other examples you could use.ETA: If you want a better example, look at UGA. I beleive they have had a "rivals" recruiting class in the top 10 every year since like 2001 or 02. What has that gotten them?The first example that came to your mind was one that actually proved the opposite of what you're arguing.As for UGA, that's gotten them the 9th best record in the NCAA in the 2000s.
  11. It's not completely accurate, but there have been some rankings put together looking at yearly recruiting rankings and corresponding on the field records/rankings. For the most part, the top 10-15 teams in the recruiting rankings end up to be the best teams in the country.So, yeah, it's an inexact science, but the more 5 and 4 star players you line up, the better your chances appear to be on Saturdays. I know lots of folks ignore the correlation <> causation elephant in the room, but I can't. The reality is, their star rating is what they were in highschool. Doesn't matter much in college...similarly, you might be 5 star in college, doesn't mean you will be in the NFL. USC is the perfect example....they have had top 10 classes for the last 2 decades (so it seems) yet look what happened this last year. Look at ND, tons of examples everywhere.http://www.star-telegram.com/991/story/1935126.html Suh was a very highly rated recruit out of HS. Just because the Star-Telegram National (lol) poorly evaluated a DT in Oregon doesn't mean he was a sleeper. And lol @ The Commish using the USC example. They've had stellar recruiting classes for 10 years and have been a force year in, and year out, except for one year in which they lost their QB, their whole LB corp and a bunch of talent to the NFL. One bad year. And that's your example? If anything, it proves the opposite. Star system is not perfect, but it's a very good indicator.
  12. How about the two aren't linked as much as the signing day honks want them to be? We see all the time how off the rankings end up being yet people continue to put a ton of stock in them. Bottom line....we don't know until they step on the field. It turns out that he's a pretty good coach and some of these kids are better (and some are worse) than the "gurus" claim. Did you guys pay attention to all teh star changing yesterday when the recruits finally signed? That's a clue.Well, I didn't pay attn, but I heard Rivals turned some of the USC recruits into 5*s when they signed with USC. Weird.You heard that from a ####### then. Rankings have been final for weeks.
  13. A bama fan who goes to Greensboro (KA's HS) is saying that KA's been wearing a lot of PSU gear recently. TIFWIW.Not going to get my hopes up because he could just be playing the game. But we really do need another QB to compete with the young guys we have so it's not that unreasonable for PSU to take his brother as well. He looked decent at Buffalo last year.I've been out of pocket for two days...what exactly is going on with this saga? Clemson was a lock late last week, Cal a lock on Sunday...now Penn State, who's been recruiting him for 3 days? And there are stories of some 'handler'?Keep in mind I get the above info from biased sources....sources now saying both Alabama and Clemson walked away.Alabama walked away because they weren't offering their brother so he wasn't coming. Clemson didn't back away. KA loved his visit to Cal and I believe has a teammate or two headed there (Gabe King, 4* DE out of my head). Cal is bringing in a very good class.