jakez4ut
Patience... It's what's for dinner
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
- Messages
- 72,522
- Likes
- 133,046
eggs acht leeNot sure why this is hard to understand. An "insider" is simply someone who has access to information that others don't, usually through a relationship. That information is only as good as the originator. If I had a personal relationship with Moose, I would know what he allowed me to know, and even that would only be as good as what he himself knew. To the extent that a) the recruit isn't misleading Moose, and b) Moose was wiling to share what he knew, an insider could bring good info. I'm certain that more than one person on here has relationships with people who know more than the general public. Sometimes those people share info with the "insider". Less often, the info share is actually factual. There is a non-zero set of people who bring info others don't have. That info is neither 100% correct, nor 0% correct. Judge for yourself.
i didnt advocate for violation of his privacy, discussing him doesnt constitute thatBut we're at a point where the recruit has made clear he wants privacy. They're going to give it to him because they rely on relationships with recruits to do their jobs. If recruits don't think they can be trusted, it affects their job.
Pruitt's regime has been as leak free as I've ever seenSo I guess based on this, he signed with GA because no one has leaked anything yet...
I think a great indicator will be Nieds mood right now on social media... can someone check his tweets etc to see what he is saying?... if he is his regular self, then maybe we still have a shot, but if he is pissy, we lost him... TIFWIW
Or, professional recruiting service journalists(using that term very loosely) refuse to discuss a recruit because he's asked for privacy and they're honoring that request to keep up their image with all of the other recruits they cover.professional recruiting service journalists refuse to discuss recruits due to fear of slippage
k
"would have not been the only "insider" to be told said information. The chances of that leaking to just an anonymous message board is nearly zero."The sooner you come to terms with the fact that there are very few if any insiders on this board will make your life much easier. IF an "insider" were informed of a signing then logic would suggest that he or she would have not been the only "insider" to be told said information. The chances of that leaking to just an anonymous message board is nearly zero.
again youse guys would like me to have that position but thats not what i've said or advocated for. just that a top ten guy and radio silence is odd. one does not need to divulge his decision, they may not even know. if pruitt asked them to not even mention his name, that would be odd to meOr, professional recruiting service journalists(using that term very loosely) refuse to discuss a recruit because he's asked for privacy and they're honoring that request to keep up their image with all of the other recruits they cover.
Addressing that last sentence, that does not seem out of character for Pruitt, imo.again youse guys would like me to have that position but thats not what i've said or advocated for. just that a top ten guy and radio silence is odd. one does not need to divulge his decision, they may not even know. if pruitt asked them to not even mention his name, that would be odd to me
id be cool with it, even if he picked Ga, pruitt knows the future is unpredictable. I was just surprised we didnt get a sentence from Hubbs like.. "we still dont know on darnell washington. Been rumored he signed but wants to keep it private until january"Addressing that last sentence, that does not seem out of character for Pruitt, imo.