If Nate Olson is reading this

(And maybe he is since he’s a contributor to Wholehog)

I have a question for you:

This many years into the Bielema regime do you still really not know why Bielema usually isn’t the first to offer in-state kids?

It has been widely discussed. Now, you may disagree with the reasoning, and that’s fine.

But, to say it’s “curious” that they were the 5th offer (and not the first) for Bohannon is disingenuous, particularly when, within the same article, you cite the absolute personification of an example of why they wait, and why/how Bama doesn’t (Byers).

Similarly, it’s funny to me that OU recruiting Norwood is used against Bielema when one of the main reasons OU offered him (very late) is that Arkansas beat OU for an Oklahoma kid (Curl).

There are plenty of things to gripe about with Bielema. If you want to argue they are too selective in-state, I’ll hear that and there may be some validity to it.

But, the examples you cite–particularly when they have extensively evaluated Norwood and the England TE seem weak.

DB is a huge need position and it is very hard to argue with what they are about to sign, there (especially if you include Chevin).

And, I think they’ve proven they are decent TE evaluators and developers.

The whole article just seems to be piling on with regard to an issue that is way down the list of valid gripes about Bielema.

I fail to remember who Nate writes recruiting columns for, anybody remember?

I make a point to never read Wally or Nate. Life is much better that way.

I thought that was not one of Nate’s finer moments.

If you care about recruiting you know the answers to the questions posed. If you don’t then it only serves to partially educate the casual fan.

Stupidity seldom admits to ignorance.
Bliss by any other name.

I felt like I was reading Eric Bolin.
Just a very bad article.

…through the years, but he seems to be on a downward spiral in his columns. He is starting to “go negative” a little too consistently and is losing credibility as his objectivity seems slanted. I quit listening years ago, but, after Stan Heath got fired, Marcus Elliott went off the deep end on Drivetime Sports Radio into negativity and has earned the “moaning Marcus” label ever since. If Bo or Clay write or say something negative about the program, I listen up. Nate and Marcus just get ignored as there is no balance to their comments, just constant negativity. JMVVVVVHO.

I like Nate as a friend and a writer.

I understand how Razorback fans how he would want Arkansas to offer more kinds in-state.

But as someone who sees them in camps, at 7 on 7 events and watches their high school games, I am confident that Arkansas’ staff has done its due diligence with all of these kids.

I know big schools have come in here and offered some of them late, but that should not change Arkansas’ evaluations, which were extensive

And that’s my problem with the whole premise. One of his main points is that OU and other name schools offered and if the recruit is good enough for them they should be good enough for us because we are just Arkansas.

Meanwhile, they only offered Norwood because they’re reaching (partially bc we got Curl out of Oklahoma despite an OU offer).

And Arkansas evaluated the heck out of the Thompson, Norwood and Powell. They didn’t offer. They got Patton, Curl and Hyatt instead.

Who knows how it will turn out but the ones they have committed look better on paper, and more importantly they evaluated them and liked them better.

Finally, though, his argument is they should take more Arkansas kids like Jamaal Anderson and Drew Morgan.

Well, what have they been doing the last few days? They’ve offered and landed 3 that fit that bill in Henry, Porter and Clary.

It’s just a really poor article.

OU had a sudden need arise at cornerback after an arrest opened up a roster spot. It’s a great opportunity for the kid.