CCM's targets looking good.

#2
#2
It makes me wi****l to know that Coach Pearl had both Polythress and Stokes nailed down. I'm not sure that Cuonzo can land either one of them.
 
#5
#5
Special Ed said:
It makes me wi****l to know that Coach Pearl had both Polythress and Stokes nailed down. I'm not sure that Cuonzo can land either one of them.
Click to expand...

It makes me wis t ful to think CBP had them nailed down and had a very good 2011 team.. and then lied to the NCAA and threw it all away leaving us in the situation we are in now. Oh well. I have faith CCM will lead us out of the darkness.
 
#6
#6
Special Ed said:
It makes me wi****l to know that Coach Pearl had both Polythress and Stokes nailed down. I'm not sure that Cuonzo can land either one of them.
Click to expand...

POYthress was anything but locked down by the previous staff. We certainly stood a better chance pre-NCAA troubles with him, but he was by no means the kind of lock that Stokes was at the time.
 
#7
#7
No point in debating because no one, including Poythress and Stokes themselves, knew where they were going. You're absolutely lying if you claim otherwise.
 
#8
#8
Stokes was locked up pretty tightly. Poythess was not even close to being locked down. I think we were not going to get him under Pearl and have slim chance now as well.
 
#9
#9
Chris4Vols22 said:
No point in debating because no one, including Poythress and Stokes themselves, knew where they were going. You're absolutely lying if you claim otherwise.
Click to expand...

It's a bit of a double standard for you chastise people for believing one or the other were close to committing, even calling those people liars, yet you feel qualified to speak on both players behalf by claiming not even they knew where they were going.

How could you anymore know what was going on in their heads than the people who believed either player was ready to commit at any time? It was pretty common knowledge now that Stokes' commitment was a matter of formality. He had his brother, his best friend, and the coach he was closest to in Knoxville. Anyone can make wild, bold claims about a prospect's eventual destination, but in Stokes' case, it certainly seemed more of a matter of "when" and not "if."
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#10
#10
therickbol said:
Stokes was locked up pretty tightly. Poythess was not even close to being locked down. I think we were not going to get him under Pearl and have slim chance now as well.
Click to expand...

Poythress wasn't even a UT lean under Pearl, I don't think. However, Pearl was going to pull more than one from the Atlanta Celtics AAU squad (Damien Wilson, Jordan Adams, Shaq Goodwin) I bet. Hard to tell how the cards would've fallen had Pearl not crapped the bed.
 
#11
#11
cncchris33 said:
It's a bit of a double standard for you chastise people for believing one or the other were close to committing, even calling those people liars, yet you feel qualified to speak on both players behalf by claiming not even they knew where they were going.

How could you anymore know what was going on in their heads than the people who believed either player was ready to commit at any time? It was pretty common knowledge now that Stokes' commitment was a matter of formality. He had his brother, his best friend, and the coach he was closest to in Knoxville. Anyone can make wild, bold claims about a prospect's eventual destination, but in Stokes' case, it certainly seemed more of a matter of "when" and not "if."
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Simply put, there's a difference between fact and speculation.
 
#12
#12
Chris4Vols22 said:
Simply put, there's a difference between fact and speculation.
Click to expand...

I understand that, but your statement is as much speculation, if not more, than those who believed Stokes was a Tennessee lock. Truthfully, no one knows with 100% certainty where they would have ended up, and that includes you unless your name is Jarnell Stokes or Alex Poythress. You have no more an idea of where they would have ended up than anyone else, yet you seem convinced otherwise, thus contradicting your fact vs. speculation defense. You went so far as to claim that they didn't even know where they were going. How can you possibly know that? Sounds a lot like speculation to me on your part. Unless of course, you are in fact Jarnell Stokes or Alex Poythress. In which case, my apologies.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#13
#13
Lol we're saying the same thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but saying that a recruit is a "lock" implies that he/she is undoubtedly committed. Therefore, by saying someone is a "lock," you are iterating a fact. Sorry if I'm still not understanding you :hi:
 
#14
#14
Chris4Vols22 said:
Lol we're saying the same thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but saying that a recruit is a "lock" implies that he/she is undoubtedly committed. Therefore, by saying someone is a "lock," you are iterating a fact. Sorry if I'm still not understanding you :hi:
Click to expand...

To be clear, I never believed that Stokes was committed. The word "lock" has a variable and a literal meaning. Literally it means with certainty, while in this case, it was being used as hyperbole for how strongly people believed Tennessee's chances were of landing him. The original poster used the phrase "nailed down.". Same thing.

I do believe all signs pointed to Tennessee being in about as good position with him ad they could be without a verbal public commitment.

I agree we are saying the same thing, but from different sides of the spectrum. What I am saying is that your hard-line stance that they had no idea what they were going to do is as much speculation as those who believed Stokes was a "lock" in any sense of the word. For all we know, Stokes was a silent commit. That may not be true at all, but no one really knows outside of a handful of people. In the end, all any of the rest of us can do is speculate, you and I included.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#15
#15
Chris4Vols22 said:
Lol we're saying the same thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but saying that a recruit is a "lock" implies that he/she is undoubtedly committed. Therefore, by saying someone is a "lock," you are iterating a fact. Sorry if I'm still not understanding you :hi:
Click to expand...

Stokes said He would have commited if Pearl didn't get fired.
 
#17
#17
WayneChism said:
I read the same thing... He said it in an interview...
Click to expand...

I was gonna post it but I thought we had come to a happy medium in the argument. But yes, Parrish stated in his blog this week that Stokes said he would have committed to UT if Pearl had not been fired.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top