Kache Palacio Decommits

by **Stallion** » Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:05 am

according to Rick Kembrell of BruinBlitz.com

by **smusic 00** » Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:17 am

Did he not see our D play in Bham? He could be doing that. Oh, well.

Hope he takes the time he needs to make up his mind.

by **PerunaPunch** » Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:46 am

Sorry to hear that, BUT, if we're stacked anywhere, it's at linebacker. We need to find a replacement for Gabriel Marks (a go-fast outside receiver to compliment Dieter) and we need 3 more monster OLs in this class IMHO.

by **goldenstang** » Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:05 am

I'm shocked! Oh wait, no I'm not.

by **SMUfiji43** » Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:36 am

Not really surprised. [Gary Patterson] Adrian Klemm. I already hated UCLA, but now I hope they get beyond massacred by the rest of the Pac 12.

USC will always be the big show in LA. Enjoy being a doormat, Bruins...

by **mavsrage311** » Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:50 am

We are not gonna keep a single Klemm California recruit.

by **SMU 86** » Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:55 am

PerunaPunch wrote:Sorry to hear that, BUT, if we're stacked anywhere, it's at linebacker. We need to find a replacement for Gabriel Marks (a go-fast outside receiver to compliment Dieter) and we need 3 more monster OLs in this class IMHO.

We are stacked next but what about the years after that? This class is not for next year. We lose 3 starting LB's after next year and now we may not have one legit OLB in this recruiting class since Richard could be a DE. And we don't even have a go fast outside WR on our radar. However, I am sure ULM, Wyoming, and UNT better lookout as we probably go after their recruits. After next year we also need more than one strong DT with Pitman and Spike graduating. Should be an interesting next 3 weeks.

by **sbsmith** » Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:49 am

Lewis is next and then the Cali pipeline will officially be dried up.

by **SMU 86** » Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:00 am

sbsmith wrote:Lewis is next and then the Cali pipeline will officially be dried up.

I think we actually have a decent chance at Lewis if Jones can out recruit Rocky Long and Mike Leach. The only person I am concerned with is Myers if he gets UCLA offer. I know what he has been saying publicly like Hulick but he wanted to play for Klemm much worse than Hulick.

by **Mitch McConnell** » Tue Jan 10, 2012 10:02 am

Texas. And it should have been that way last January with the junior days.

Instead you have a flawed philosophy that didn't establish Texas like it should have and found a way to keep recruits within your program. When you have a coaching change and your top kids are out of state, that leads to this mess.

This might be treason, but I'm going to say it: Adrian Klemm wasn't all that.

None of us should be surprised by this.

by **SMU 86** » Tue Jan 10, 2012 10:13 am

Mitch McConnell wrote:Texas. And it should have been that way last January with the junior days.

Instead you have a flawed philosophy that didn't establish Texas like it should have and found a way to keep recruits within your program. When you have a coaching change and your top kids are out of state, that leads to this mess.

This might be treason, but I'm going to say it: Adrian Klemm wasn't all that.

None of us should be surprised by this.

Myer is from Texas. Suppose we lose him?

by **Mitch McConnell** » Tue Jan 10, 2012 10:16 am

Suppose we lose everybody and sign no one?

86 -- Why do you enjoy borrowing so much trouble?

Just relax.

by **SMU 86** » Tue Jan 10, 2012 10:20 am

Mitch McConnell wrote:Suppose we lose everybody and sign no one?

Your repetitive grind has been Texas AD NAUSEAM. Well we stand a good chance at losing a Texas kid to UCLA. It's all about relationships not geography Mitch. By the way, didn't we just recruit Texas when Bennett was here? You are the one that seems to believe we have the same pull as aTm, Tech, and Texas. In fact Tech might be higher on Lewis' our list than SMU. You are the one panicking. When I said suppose we lose Myer what I meant was what are you going to say about that since you can type your one word response of Texas.

by **westexSMU** » Tue Jan 10, 2012 10:29 am

Nothing to worry about.... Looks like a good time for a vacation to me, and certainly no need to stop off in Cali. to see any of these guys right ?

by **Mitch McConnell** » Tue Jan 10, 2012 10:30 am

We've talked about Bennett's approach which was also flawed.

He never went into Houston and supposedly offered only the kids who went to his camps.

You don't get yourself into the "pull" like Tech and A&M and TCU if you don't work the state.

I very well aware that relationships tell the story. Reinebold's rapport with Dieter tells you that.

But I also argue that if you have a change on your staff and most of the recruits behind are not from your home state, you are very vulnerable.

This is the problem with the approach of putting too much emphasis on California.

And I'm not the only one who feels this way about Texas.