Scout.com: 2 White WRs in top 90- None in Top 80

T

ToughJ.Riggins

Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
5,063
Location
Ontario Canada
It appears Scout.com is just as bad as Rivals now. 2 white WRs ranked at #82 (Clay Honeycutt) and #85 (Mitch Saylor). And the DWF's are doing keg stands to celebrate this FABRICATION LIST- cheering their teams recruits in the top 90 and the destruction of their own race's athletes.
smiley52.gif
 
Scout also now has only one white WR- Mitch Saylor at #86 in the top 100. These losers are doing everything in their power to end the careers of talented white athletes. These wackos are closet racists against blacks- I'm afraid. They make up for their white guilt for being racist by ranking only one white WR in the top 100 to feel all righteous about getting as many blacks scholarships over whites as possible. Face it you farce scouts- you are racist against blacks- racism is what rankings like this create. Either that, or maybe you are all weasels born without one vertebrae in your spines to stand up to the system. Or maybe it's making you guys angry that whites are 3 of the top 5 WRs for this NFL draft according to Gil Brandt and you hate white "Christian" culture and values.

Also 7 of the top 11 QBs are black on Racist SCOUT.COM. They are even trying to make QB a 60% black position in the FBS in our 13% black country.

I'm afraid we are going to have to see an economic collapse of epic proportions worse than the Great Depression to wake whites up to the cultural Marxist lunatics that are running our nation. Maybe the NFL goes under in this case. It is white hating organizations like Scout.com, Yahoo and our wacko politicians currently in control.

Also Scout.com doesn't even have Zach Zwinak as the top FB. They also have Channing Fugate as the 7th ranked FB when he rushed for over 3,000 yards as a senior, runs a 4.55 and is clearly another big tailback like Beanie Wells or Charles Scott.
smiley7.gif
Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins
 
Tough J Riggins, I agree these sites are horrific and disgusting. However, in looking back say three years ago weren't they just as bad? My point is that in spite of their erroneous information look at how many White WR's there are starting today in NCAA football. Sure, there should be more, but there are way more starting than you'd expect based on Scout or Rival's horrendous ratings.
In the Big Ten, Pac Ten, MWC and MAC about half the teams or even a little more than half have a starting white WR. This shows that at least at these more white friendly schools, these ratings are looked at with a grain of salt, so to speak. Also, don't forget that recent article linked at draft daddy about how teams have been getting burned by relying on internet sites instead of actually doing scout work.
 
referendum said:
Tough J Riggins, I agree these sites are horrific and disgusting. However, in looking back say three years ago weren't they just as bad? My point is that in spite of their erroneous information look at how many White WR's there are starting today in NCAA football. Sure, there should be more, but there are way more starting than you'd expect based on Scout or Rival's horrendous ratings.
In the Big Ten, Pac Ten, MWC and MAC about half the teams or even a little more than half have a starting white WR. This shows that at least at these more white friendly schools, these ratings are looked at with a grain of salt, so to speak. Also, don't forget that recent article linked at draft daddy about how teams have been getting burned by relying on internet sites instead of actually doing scout work.
Click to expand...

Good point referendum. Looking at scout or Rivals you have one or two white receivers in the top 100. However, in college football you have roughly 25 percent starting white receivers. Some of these starting white receivers in college are walk ons who had to earn their position the hard way.
 
referendum said:
Tough J Riggins, I agree these sites are horrific and disgusting. However, in looking back say three years ago weren't they just as bad? My point is that in spite of their erroneous information look at how many White WR's there are starting today in NCAA football. Sure, there should be more, but there are way more starting than you'd expect based on Scout or Rival's horrendous ratings.
In the Big Ten, Pac Ten, MWC and MAC about half the teams or even a little more than half have a starting white WR. This shows that at least at these more white friendly schools, these ratings are looked at with a grain of salt, so to speak. Also, don't forget that recent article linked at draft daddy about how teams have been getting burned by relying on internet sites instead of actually doing scout work.
Click to expand...

That is a good point, BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT MAKES ME EVEN MORE ANGRY. Most schools do at least check Rivals and Scout to read about, find players and watch the videos of players that they haven't scouted yet.

Yes, it's the stupid schools- like Miami- that are completely relying on these potato chip eating anti-white lunatic scouts and getting burned. However, most fans give plenty of merit to Rivals and Scout on message boards. The DWFs fawn over blacks that are ranked high by them. This is why they see Ryan Swope as a 3 star mediocre talent or fullback and see Christine Michael as a freakish 5 star talent- when to me Michael's very arguably not even a top 250 prospect and Swope IMO should be. It will be very hard for a white HB to jump ahead on the depth chart of Christine Michael or a guy like Michael Ford (overrated also) with all the hype they have. These sites do have some effect.

It makes me very angry at how stupid people are in this country to actually give merit to a list of 1% white WRs in the top 100 or a list of 7 of the top 11 QBs black in our 75% white nation. About 25% of FBS STARTING receivers are white. Also, Eric Decker, Kerry Meier, Jordan Shipley and Ryan Wolfe are all a threat to win the Biletnikoff this year and Austin Collie arguably should have won it last year. Wes Welker made the pro-bowl last year at the NFL level too.

These fans must be blind with rodent sized brains to not at least question if there is an agenda with these sites. This proves my point that anti-white, cultural Marxist extremists have most of the power in this country currently. We need people of influence on our side in the media to challenge the zealous "scouting services". We need more, Draftdaddys, Adam Nettinas, Taylor Bells (black by the way) and former players who coach- like Don Bebee- to speak out more.

Also, Tom Lemming has gotten worse the past couple years- after having 28 whites in his top 100 prospects in 2008 (McGuffie was in the top 30 and there were several whites at caste positions)- he was at 21 last year (if I'm not mistaken). Lemming appears afraid to be significantly different than Rivals and ESPN, even though he has acknowledged the bias out there before. Lemming's list looks bad this year and Scout and Takkle.com has gone downhill- falling in line with Caste wacko Tom Luginbill (ESPN's Scouts INC.) and communist Yahoo's Rivals. Rise Mag- which was also better- was bought out by ESPN.
smiley7.gif
smiley11.gif
Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins
 
i dont worry about the black quarterbacks. most of them end up doing jack at the college level. the ones that are pushed by the pro black media all the way to thee nfl usually dont work out either. seriously guys, how many quality black qbs are in the nfl.tarvaris jackson? it would be nice to say that he is a below average qb. jamarcus russell? hasnt done anything in the league so far. jason campbell? another overhyped qb. dont put to much faith into these things.
 
what worries me more than the flood of black qbs is the influx of blacks that the nfl calls "offensive linemen".
 
Those obese "sumos" the NFL calls offensive linemen are just a fad. I think NFL offensive lines will become significantly whiter in the next 5 years or so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
American Freedom News
Back
Top