Quote Originally Posted by HSVDawg View Post
I agree we need to take more OL. No doubt about that. And I also agree that the ones we do take need to be more talented than they have been. But, for a kid to even qualify as a "project", he has to have the measurables to work with. Right now, there is some doubt about those measurables being there with Smith amongst the in-state staffs. Shit, OM's campus is 20 minutes away, so Luke has probably seen him in person a double-digit number of times (plus, he attended their Jr. day). And we all know how much they'd love to stick a thumb in our eye and pull in an MSU legacy that may end up being a really good player. And they haven't even offered yet either. It cannot be emphasized enough that we just cannot offer an in-state legacy in March or a recruiting cycle if there is even a hint that he might not be a bona fide SEC player. If the situation were reversed and he was a Louisiana kid, we absolutely could do it. But not for a MS kid and especially not for a legacy.
If he is a good enough prospect for LSU and Oregon, he is a good enough prospect for us to offer right now regardless of whether he is a legacy or not. Slow playing a kid "just because he's a legacy" is equally as bad if not worse than just taking a legacy because he's a legacy and can't play. And even though he is a legacy we still have to recruit them and let them know that we want them. If you think a kid can play- don't *****foot around because you think he will be easy to pick up. Offer him. If Hevesy doesn't think he can play- he better hope he doesn't pan out for LSU is all I have to say about that.

As far as Ole Miss not offering him- they ARE about to be on probation and I would imagine that their numbers are going to be very tight. I think they also would fear us flipping him and basically doing the same thing that happened when they flipped Sean Rawlings from us. If he was an Ole Miss legacy I'm 100% sure they would have offered him right now- and he would probably be in their class.