Join Our Green Bay Packers Interactive Community!

We have been providing fans with the best source of Packers information since 2006!
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
5 Pages<1234>»
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline play2win  
#26 Posted : Thursday, June 19, 2014 5:39:58 AM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

Um, is this the offseason? Laughing Laughing Laughing

More than an entire page of posts in a Chris Harper thread dedicated to Charles Johnson? Who in the fuck is Charles Johnson? I mean, really, a guy we drafted late, never saw play, hung onto via IR for a year and waived, picked up by the world beater Browns.

As worthless as 7th round picks may be perceived to be, in walks Jeff Janis...

Some picks work. Some picks don't.

Every team invests heavily in gaining more or better draft info than their competitors. Scouting staffs and their evaluations, along with scheduled visits for private workouts, etc give teams their own info on players to go along with the canned info we fans get in Combines and pro days. This accounts for teams stacking their draft boards differently than others.

Some fans wanted heads to roll after our 3rd round selections this year. Were they reaches? We can't really know. If there are 5-8 other teams below us who feel the same player is rising on their board and we take him 10-20 spots ahead of their picks to insure we secure the player, is it really a reach?

Maybe our scouting staff feels the difference between other players on their board near to this selection is negligible based on their millions of $ worth of research.

Talents in scouting vary as widely as talents in playing the game. That is what heightens the fun of the offseason to me with regards to FA, the draft, and UDFA, and we won't know who trumps who until well after the season starts.

July seems very, very far away...
thanks Post received 1 applause.
OlHoss1884 on 6/24/2014(UTC)
Offline steveishere  
#27 Posted : Thursday, June 19, 2014 5:46:16 AM(UTC)
steveishere

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2013

Joined: 7/28/2012(UTC)

Applause Given: 48
Applause Received: 981

Enough derailment for me. I am much more excited about the WR competition this year than last year. We've got a lot of so far unknown guys like Harper, Dorsey, and our rookies to compete for 2 or 3 spots it should be fun to see. Hopefully talent decides things and not injuries. We've also got Myles White who made it on to the 53 for a short time last year. The big question is if someone like Harper looks like he's legit ready to play in games do you still take him over someone like Janis who possibly isn't ready to make that kind of impact yet but could be better in a couple years?
thanks Post received 1 applause.
play2win on 6/19/2014(UTC)
Offline play2win  
#28 Posted : Thursday, June 19, 2014 5:52:46 AM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

Originally Posted by: steveishere Go to Quoted Post
Enough derailment for me. I am much more excited about the WR competition this year than last year. We've got a lot of so far unknown guys like Harper, Dorsey, and our rookies to compete for 2 or 3 spots it should be fun to see. Hopefully talent decides things and not injuries. We've also got Myles White who made it on to the 53 for a short time last year. The big question is if someone like Harper looks like he's legit ready to play in games do you still take him over someone like Janis who possibly isn't ready to make that kind of impact yet but could be better in a couple years?


Completely agree, and hell yeah, there are some very compelling questions and variables going into the decisions that will be made in establishing our WR group for 2014.

There is some incredible talent 1-9 of all the WRs in house competing for the final roster, including Harper, Janis, Dorsey and White. I don't know about Gillette...

steveishere, after seeing all of them in practice, Harper was looking like he could compete with nearly anyone outside of Nelson & Cobb.
Offline nerdmann  
#29 Posted : Thursday, June 19, 2014 5:55:32 AM(UTC)
nerdmann

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,714
Applause Received: 665

I remember this time of year 15 years ago, when I read articles about how Charles Lee and Corey Bradford were gonna have breakout seasons, because they were rededicating themselves. lol

This team has been very good of late at developing these late pick/undrafted FA types, but I'll wait until I actually see it before I start popping a woody.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
thanks Post received 2 applause.
play2win on 6/19/2014(UTC), OlHoss1884 on 6/24/2014(UTC)
Offline sschind  
#30 Posted : Thursday, June 19, 2014 6:55:06 AM(UTC)
sschind

Rank: 3rd Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/5/2013(UTC)
Location: SE WISCONSIN

Applause Given: 123
Applause Received: 450

Originally Posted by: nerdmann Go to Quoted Post
I remember this time of year 15 years ago, when I read articles about how Charles Lee and Corey Bradford were gonna have breakout seasons, because they were rededicating themselves. lol

This team has been very good of late at developing these late pick/undrafted FA types, but I'll wait until I actually see it before I start popping a woody.



You realize that uffda wants a Bradford type guy right. A fast guy who is just that, a guy. Nothing special. If I were going to look into the Packers past and pick a type I would want on my team Corey Bradford probably wouldn't be at the top of my list.

Just bustin' your chops uffda, I know what you meant. I just couldn't resist seeing as how you and nerd both brought up Bradford
I respect your right to have your opinion but that doesn't mean I agree with it or respect you for having it.
Offline uffda udfa  
#31 Posted : Thursday, June 19, 2014 12:55:40 PM(UTC)
uffda udfa

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 4/25/2014(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 149
Applause Received: 150

Originally Posted by: play2win Go to Quoted Post
Um, is this the offseason? Laughing Laughing Laughing

More than an entire page of posts in a Chris Harper thread dedicated to Charles Johnson? Who in the fuck is Charles Johnson? I mean, really, a guy we drafted late, never saw play, hung onto via IR for a year and waived, picked up by the world beater Browns.

As worthless as 7th round picks may be perceived to be, in walks Jeff Janis...

Some picks work. Some picks don't.

Every team invests heavily in gaining more or better draft info than their competitors. Scouting staffs and their evaluations, along with scheduled visits for private workouts, etc give teams their own info on players to go along with the canned info we fans get in Combines and pro days. This accounts for teams stacking their draft boards differently than others.

Some fans wanted heads to roll after our 3rd round selections this year. Were they reaches? We can't really know. If there are 5-8 other teams below us who feel the same player is rising on their board and we take him 10-20 spots ahead of their picks to insure we secure the player, is it really a reach?

Maybe our scouting staff feels the difference between other players on their board near to this selection is negligible based on their millions of $ worth of research.

Talents in scouting vary as widely as talents in playing the game. That is what heightens the fun of the offseason to me with regards to FA, the draft, and UDFA, and we won't know who trumps who until well after the season starts.

July seems very, very far away...


I'm just shocked you've forgotten who Charles Johnson was....I would've thought you had him pegged as better than Sterling and the best ever to play in Green Bay without ever seeing him play a regular season snap for the Packers. Nah, you would never do such a thing. Laughing

sschind... Bust me all day every day. Makes it fun. I want a guy who can run... really fast. I know it continually is discounted here, but think Sam Shields. I loved when we grabbed him. He had speed beyond belief. He wasn't even drafted and Joe Whitt was saying he had more talent than any 1st rounder from that draft he didn't get taken in. Bold, bold words. I recall that YouTube clip where he ran that KO reverse for a TD vs. our beloved Badgers. If you've never seen it... do yourself a favor and go watch it. We have a nice WR group with some great skill set but the one subset that is missing is pure speed. Janis has that. Harper doesn't. Harper is just another guy with middling speed. Diversify the portfolio!

Oh, and here's that clip... called back by penalty, but watch the entire clip to see just how far and how fast he ran.



UserPostedImage

It's one heckuva drug.
Offline play2win  
#32 Posted : Thursday, June 19, 2014 6:42:35 PM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa Go to Quoted Post
I'm just shocked you've forgotten who Charles Johnson was....I would've thought you had him pegged as better than Sterling and the best ever to play in Green Bay without ever seeing him play a regular season snap for the Packers. Nah, you would never do such a thing. Laughing




Yep. Completely forgot who he was. Rolling Eyes

You are mistaken in saying that people here do not appreciate, or "discount" speed. Everyone here wants the fastest players with the best hands, abilities and instincts for the game.

Unfortunately, you don't seem to want to acknowledge that a player's 40 time might not exactly be completely and fully indicative of his on field speed, game speed, with all of his gear on, running on turf. Nor that plenty of track stars in 40 times don't necessarily make exceptional football players.

Regardless, I do think we all want exactly the same thing for the Packers. Players who are fast, instinctual, with great ball skills, and highly motivated to be the best they can possibly be at their positions.
Offline DakotaT  
#33 Posted : Thursday, June 19, 2014 6:59:22 PM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 669
Applause Received: 1,376

Every time Uffda goes on his speed rants, I think of guys like Willie Gault, Troy Williamson, Hayward Bey, Renaldo Nehimiah - you know, track stars that can't catch or play football. Then I think about that slow piece of shit Jerry Rice and if could have only unhitched the plow when he was on the field.

Just give me the guys that can catch the fuckin ball when it hits them between the numbers.
UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 3 applause.
evad04 on 6/20/2014(UTC), earthquake on 6/20/2014(UTC), DoddPower on 6/21/2014(UTC)
Offline nerdmann  
#34 Posted : Thursday, June 19, 2014 8:19:05 PM(UTC)
nerdmann

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,714
Applause Received: 665

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
Every time Uffda goes on his speed rants, I think of guys like Willie Gault, Troy Williamson, Hayward Bey, Renaldo Nehimiah - you know, track stars that can't catch or play football. Then I think about that slow piece of shit Jerry Rice and if could have only unhitched the plow when he was on the field.

Just give me the guys that can catch the fuckin ball when it hits them between the numbers.


Driver was a track guy. Then again he had his share of drops earlier in his career.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Offline uffda udfa  
#35 Posted : Thursday, June 19, 2014 8:40:44 PM(UTC)
uffda udfa

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 4/25/2014(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 149
Applause Received: 150

Originally Posted by: play2win Go to Quoted Post
Yep. Completely forgot who he was. Rolling Eyes

You are mistaken in saying that people here do not appreciate, or "discount" speed. Everyone here wants the fastest players with the best hands, abilities and instincts for the game.

Unfortunately, you don't seem to want to acknowledge that a player's 40 time might not exactly be completely and fully indicative of his on field speed, game speed, with all of his gear on, running on turf. Nor that plenty of track stars in 40 times don't necessarily make exceptional football players.

Regardless, I do think we all want exactly the same thing for the Packers. Players who are fast, instinctual, with great ball skills, and highly motivated to be the best they can possibly be at their positions.


The things you've ascribed to me are false. Use the search function on 40 times and my posts regarding them. The part about you stating that track stars don't make great football players is especially false. I've never come anywhere near contending they do or have. What I have tried to consistently say is I want the Packers to feature at least ONE WR who has blazing speed. Sadly, we routinely trot out a group that doesn't feature a burner.

This little blurb from rotoviz.com was interesting when it comes to speed:

As I mentioned, Boldin and Mike Clayton are the only wide receivers to post slower than 4.65 40 and have a top 30 wide receiver season since 1999. When speaking of Boldin and Rice, what you’re pointing out isn’t that a slower WR can succeed; you’re also pointing out exactly how rare it is for a slower WR to post usable fantasy numbers. It isn’t that it can’t be done, it’s just that it’s rare when it does happen.

As that little blurb points out, it is very rare for a slow WR to fare well at NFL level. The Packer fan that wants to shout...Boykin!...Boykin! doesn't realize how truly rare that is that he is able to produce as he does.

What do you routinely hear about NFL WR's when they get older? They lost their legs and can't run anymore... clearly speed is very important. I have never said it is the only thing that is important but it is critical. AD ain't AD without his speed... Megatron ain't megatron without his either.
UserPostedImage

It's one heckuva drug.
Offline mi_keys  
#36 Posted : Thursday, June 19, 2014 9:12:37 PM(UTC)
mi_keys

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 227
Applause Received: 359

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa Go to Quoted Post
The things you've ascribed to me are false. Use the search function on 40 times and my posts regarding them. The part about you stating that track stars don't make great football players is especially false. I've never come anywhere near contending they do or have. What I have tried to consistently say is I want the Packers to feature at least ONE WR who has blazing speed. Sadly, we routinely trot out a group that doesn't feature a burner


P2W can correct me if I'm wrong but he's not claiming you literally stated track stars don't make great football players. The comment about track stars comes from the inordinate amount of attention you give 40 times. It's taking the piss.

You seem obsessed with 40 times to an unhealthy level. If 40 times could be manifested as a woman I could almost see you sneaking into her house while she's out and stealing her finger nail clippings. It's creepy.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa Go to Quoted Post
This little blurb from rotoviz.com was interesting when it comes to speed:

As I mentioned, Boldin and Mike Clayton are the only wide receivers to post slower than 4.65 40 and have a top 30 wide receiver season since 1999. When speaking of Boldin and Rice, what you’re pointing out isn’t that a slower WR can succeed; you’re also pointing out exactly how rare it is for a slower WR to post usable fantasy numbers. It isn’t that it can’t be done, it’s just that it’s rare when it does happen.


When I compiled the 40 times of all 34 receivers taken in the 2014 draft, only 1 had a 40 time slower than 4.65 (Jarvis Landry, and he has a pro day time at 4.58). 1 in 34.

I don't know how that compares to other years because I haven't pulled them. That said, I'd bet the sample size of wide receivers with a 40 time slower than 4.65 is quite small. If so, then it's not surprising that the subset of wide receivers posting top 30 seasons also contains a small percentage of receivers with a 40 time slower than 4.65. It's ultimately not a very revealing or meaningful statistic with zero context.

To put it another way with a slightly more extreme example, I could say no receiver taller than 7'6" has posted a top 30 season since 1999. Someone could read into that what they want: that being shorter than 7'6" must somehow be advantageous for NFL receivers. Yet, it wouldn't actually mean anything because no receiver in the league is taller than 7'6".

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa Go to Quoted Post
AD ain't AD without his speed... Megatron ain't megatron without his either.


Both of those players are so much more than just their 40 times.
Born and bred a cheesehead
thanks Post received 5 applause.
play2win on 6/20/2014(UTC), evad04 on 6/20/2014(UTC), earthquake on 6/20/2014(UTC), Dexter_Sinister on 6/21/2014(UTC), greengold on 6/27/2014(UTC)
Offline uffda udfa  
#37 Posted : Thursday, June 19, 2014 9:50:48 PM(UTC)
uffda udfa

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 4/25/2014(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 149
Applause Received: 150

Originally Posted by: mi_keys Go to Quoted Post
P2W can correct me if I'm wrong but he's not claiming you literally stated track stars don't make great football players. The comment about track stars comes from the inordinate amount of attention you give 40 times. It's taking the piss.

You seem obsessed with 40 times to an unhealthy level. If 40 times could be manifested as a woman I could almost see you sneaking into her house while she's out and stealing her finger nail clippings. It's creepy.



When I compiled the 40 times of all 34 receivers taken in the 2014 draft, only 1 had a 40 time slower than 4.65 (Jarvis Landry, and he has a pro day time at 4.58). 1 in 34.

I don't know how that compares to other years because I haven't pulled them. That said, I'd bet the sample size of wide receivers with a 40 time slower than 4.65 is quite small. If so, then it's not surprising that the subset of wide receivers posting top 30 seasons also contains a small percentage of receivers with a 40 time slower than 4.65. It's ultimately not a very revealing or meaningful statistic with zero context.

To put it another way with a slightly more extreme example, I could say no receiver taller than 7'6" has posted a top 30 season since 1999. Someone could read into that what they want: that being shorter than 7'6" must somehow be advantageous for NFL receivers. Yet, it wouldn't actually mean anything because no receiver in the league is taller than 7'6".



Both of those players are so much more than just their 40 times.


Yes, both those players are more than their 40 times, but they wouldn't be what they are without them which is the point.

Your 7'6 comment seems irrelevant to this discussion. There are time constraints beyond which a guy will all but be guaranteed of not being successful as an NFL WR. 4.65 is the threshold used in that piece quoted. I gave you a graph earlier that had 10 years worth of data.

I think you'll find, if you use the search function, that my perspective on 40 times is right on the money, not obsessive even though you feel that way because the majority of you are obsessed in the other direction as it doesn't really matter much. This all started with our drafting a 4.56 and 4.87 guy in the draft in the first 3 rounds and my disappointment with it. Not sure how many times I need to say it but I was hopeful for a guy with unique speed...not another mid 4.5 guy...got enough guys in 4.5 range.

I'm thrilled with the Jeff Janis selection. A rare athlete. My kind of guy. Hoping he can play, too.
UserPostedImage

It's one heckuva drug.
Offline mi_keys  
#38 Posted : Thursday, June 19, 2014 10:24:33 PM(UTC)
mi_keys

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 227
Applause Received: 359

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa Go to Quoted Post
Your 7'6 comment seems irrelevant to this discussion. There are time constraints beyond which a guy will all but be guaranteed of not being successful as an NFL WR. 4.65 is the threshold used in that piece quoted.


And you missed the point. 7'6" is irrelevant because no receiver is 7'6" or taller. 4.65 is irrelevant if almost no receiver was clocked at slower than 4.65. In such a case they might as well have said receivers running slower than an 8 second 40. It does almost nothing in establishing the correlation of 40 times and success as an NFL receiver, let alone any potential causal effects.


Originally Posted by: uffda udfa Go to Quoted Post
I gave you a graph earlier that had 10 years worth of data.


Which watered the data down into averages of arbitrarily selected draft pick ranges, giving no context to sample size, medians, outliers or what the distribution actually looks like. As such, it had almost no value in the context of showing how 40 times were correlated to where players are selected in the draft.


Born and bred a cheesehead
Offline uffda udfa  
#39 Posted : Thursday, June 19, 2014 10:47:00 PM(UTC)
uffda udfa

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 4/25/2014(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 149
Applause Received: 150

There is nothing that says a 7'6 WR can't be found... there is no issue with height being a bad thing. However, there is an issue with not enough speed being an issue and you know that and I know that.

Most guys who run 4.65+ aren't going to be WR's. Correct? Why is it so wrong to be concerned when we have guys who are closer to it rather than further away? I don't think Davante Adams can't be a very good WR because of his 4.56 speed. However, I think he'd be an even better and more attractive one if he ran 4.36. Right?

Would the Packers have ever picked up Sam Shields if he ran in the 4.6 range? No...he was added for his unique gift of speed. I'm not sure what the issue is with drafting it instead of UDFA'ing it? Again, I was hopeful we'd find guys who were great prospects up high who had very good speed. We did not. We found two bottom end guys speed wise. That's disappointing to me... Dix can be thrown in there, also. Another middling speed guy. You aren't bothered by middle to low end speed prospects and I am. Just a different view between you and me. I get the Jerry Rice example...painfully Boykin type slow and one of the best of all time. I can only imagine how much more dominant he would've been running like Randy Moss.
UserPostedImage

It's one heckuva drug.
Offline play2win  
#40 Posted : Friday, June 20, 2014 12:50:37 AM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa Go to Quoted Post
The things you've ascribed to me are false.


No, they are not.
Offline mi_keys  
#41 Posted : Friday, June 20, 2014 3:44:15 AM(UTC)
mi_keys

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 227
Applause Received: 359

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa Go to Quoted Post
There is nothing that says a 7'6 WR can't be found... there is no issue with height being a bad thing. However, there is an issue with not enough speed being an issue and you know that and I know that.


Not even remotely the point. I'm not saying you couldn't find a 7'6" receiver. I'm not saying height is a bad thing. I literally said the number was irrelevant, that this arbitrarily threshold could be read into however someone wanted, but that it wasn't a meaningful statistic.

It was selected to illustrate that you could read into a meaningless statistic something that was false or irrelevant. You proceeded to do just that.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa Go to Quoted Post
Most guys who run 4.65+ aren't going to be WR's. Correct?


Yes. Per my first response, I posted a sample size that suggests very few receivers run slower than 4.65. Assuming that sample size is remotely representative, very few receivers run slower than 4.65.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa Go to Quoted Post
Why is it so wrong to be concerned when we have guys who are closer to it rather than further away? I don't think Davante Adams can't be a very good WR because of his 4.56 speed.


You've established no evidence that suggests we should be concerned with a 4.56 second 40. None. Maybe it is out there. But if it is, you've not made the case.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa Go to Quoted Post
However, I think he'd be an even better and more attractive one if he ran 4.36. Right?


Straw man. No one is arguing that, all other relevant factors being equal, that being faster wouldn't help a receiver. This is true if you say that all else being equal a higher vertical or a better shuttle time or a longer broad jump or a higher bench press or a better wonderlic score wouldn't be beneficial. This argument doesn't warrant one of those statistics being taken head and shoulders above the others.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa Go to Quoted Post
Would the Packers have ever picked up Sam Shields if he ran in the 4.6 range? No...he was added for his unique gift of speed.


I like how when it's undrafted free agent Sam Shields, he's given a chance because he's fast; but when it's undrafted free agent Jarrett Boykin, he fell through the draft because he's slow.


Originally Posted by: uffda udfa Go to Quoted Post
I'm not sure what the issue is with drafting it instead of UDFA'ing it?


No one said there's an issue with drafting speed.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa Go to Quoted Post
Again, I was hopeful we'd find guys who were great prospects up high who had very good speed.


No issue with people having a personal preference for speed.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa Go to Quoted Post
We did not. We found two bottom end guys speed wise. That's disappointing to me...


Ok.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa Go to Quoted Post
Dix can be thrown in there, also. Another middling speed guy. You aren't bothered by middle to low end speed prospects and I am.


And here's where people start to take issue. All you talk about is 40s, which are only a proxy for playing speed, and you completely discount all of the other factors that go into a good player. THAT's what people have hammered you for.

I'm bothered by someone who is slower and has no other redeeming qualities (or not enough redeeming qualities to net out as an above average to good player). I'm also bothered by someone who is fast but can't tackle, catch, block, hit or read the game.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa Go to Quoted Post
Just a different view between you and me. I get the Jerry Rice example...painfully Boykin type slow and one of the best of all time. I can only imagine how much more dominant he would've been running like Randy Moss.


Or how much more dominant with a higher vertical. Or a quicker release. Or more strength. Or more ability to break tackles. Or even more sure hands. Or more agility. Or a better understanding of the game. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Born and bred a cheesehead
thanks Post received 5 applause.
play2win on 6/20/2014(UTC), evad04 on 6/20/2014(UTC), earthquake on 6/20/2014(UTC), DoddPower on 6/21/2014(UTC), greengold on 6/27/2014(UTC)
Offline uffda udfa  
#42 Posted : Friday, June 20, 2014 7:36:48 PM(UTC)
uffda udfa

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 4/25/2014(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 149
Applause Received: 150

I've always been bemused when people use the line by line response technique. I guess when it's done being used they feel like they've really showed the other person.

What evidence do I need to present? You said I've offered none. The point that you and others haven't acknowledged when it comes to speed is that is a HUGE differentiator among scouts and GM's when they set out to draft talent. How many times have you heard... "he would've gone higher if he ran a better 40?" How many? You seem to take issue with what NFL talent evaluators value very highly. I happen to be on the side of the guys who do this for a living that it is a vital component when looking at a prospect. Chris Borland was bantied about over and over regarding his limited athletic traits... "If not for his.... this kid's a 1st rounder"... he was slow, and also short. Yes, the balance of what he brought to the table still netted a decent draft status but, again, with better speed he's going much higher.

If you're studying WR's and you think you might need one MOST franchises are going to be looking for ones with excellent speed. Again, a guy like Robinson from Penn State... "he would've been a 1st rounder if he ran better"...excellent skills...not fast=not a 1st rounder. We select a guy who nets 4.56 when the guys I really liked timed much faster, as, again, we have a stable of middling speed guys. You have turned my disappointment with the turtles we drafted into the idea that I worship 40 times. If we drafted a couple of 260lbers to play DE/NT I would've lamented we didn't get guys with the size needed to be effective. Would I then be worshiping size? No, I would be expressing my disappointment that I felt we took undersized guys when there were more attractive guys available with size.

UserPostedImage

It's one heckuva drug.
Offline StarrMax1  
#43 Posted : Friday, June 20, 2014 8:42:41 PM(UTC)
StarrMax1

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 5/9/2014(UTC)
Location: Toledo

Applause Given: 92
Applause Received: 84



I'm lost,

I was looking for opinions on Chris Harper.

?????????????????????????????????

He will surprise everyone if he gets that hammy healed by training camp and will be The packers #4 receiver at the beginning of the season.

Offline uffda udfa  
#44 Posted : Friday, June 20, 2014 9:28:16 PM(UTC)
uffda udfa

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 4/25/2014(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 149
Applause Received: 150

Originally Posted by: StarrMax1 Go to Quoted Post
I'm lost,

I was looking for opinions on Chris Harper.

?????????????????????????????????



Slow. Laughing

EDIT: In fairness, he ran 4.38 at his pro day...and was also the guy who did the most reps on the bench for WR's with 20. So, he's plenty strong which is what he's said is his calling card. Plus, he's a converted QB...that reminds me of one of my old pre-season favs, Carlyle Holiday... or even Anquan Boldin.

Message modified by user Friday, June 20, 2014 9:42:21 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

UserPostedImage

It's one heckuva drug.
Offline StarrMax1  
#45 Posted : Friday, June 20, 2014 9:52:38 PM(UTC)
StarrMax1

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 5/9/2014(UTC)
Location: Toledo

Applause Given: 92
Applause Received: 84

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa Go to Quoted Post
Slow. Laughing

EDIT: In fairness, he ran 4.38 at his pro day...and was also the guy who did the most reps on the bench for WR's with 20. So, he's plenty strong which is what he's said is his calling card. Plus, he's a converted QB...that reminds me of one of my old pre-season favs, Carlyle Holiday... or even Anquan Boldin.


I really don't care what these guys ran the 40 in in their underwear.

After the draft that is one of the most useless stats there is.

Quickness, agility, hand-eye coordination, hand strength, are just a few factors that are much more important than any 40yd time.

I'll take a guy who can run a perfect route every time over pure speed any day.



Offline play2win  
#46 Posted : Friday, June 20, 2014 10:02:12 PM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa Go to Quoted Post
I've always been bemused when people use the line by line response technique. I guess when it's done being used they feel like they've really showed the other person.

What evidence do I need to present? You said I've offered none. The point that you and others haven't acknowledged when it comes to speed is that is a HUGE differentiator among scouts and GM's when they set out to draft talent. How many times have you heard... "he would've gone higher if he ran a better 40?" How many? You seem to take issue with what NFL talent evaluators value very highly. I happen to be on the side of the guys who do this for a living that it is a vital component when looking at a prospect. Chris Borland was bantied about over and over regarding his limited athletic traits... "If not for his.... this kid's a 1st rounder"... he was slow, and also short. Yes, the balance of what he brought to the table still netted a decent draft status but, again, with better speed he's going much higher.

If you're studying WR's and you think you might need one MOST franchises are going to be looking for ones with excellent speed. Again, a guy like Robinson from Penn State... "he would've been a 1st rounder if he ran better"...excellent skills...not fast=not a 1st rounder. We select a guy who nets 4.56 when the guys I really liked timed much faster, as, again, we have a stable of middling speed guys. You have turned my disappointment with the turtles we drafted into the idea that I worship 40 times. If we drafted a couple of 260lbers to play DE/NT I would've lamented we didn't get guys with the size needed to be effective. Would I then be worshiping size? No, I would be expressing my disappointment that I felt we took undersized guys when there were more attractive guys available with size.



For F sake! Quit your bitching. You've said all of this enough already.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
DoddPower on 6/21/2014(UTC)
Offline mi_keys  
#47 Posted : Saturday, June 21, 2014 11:49:47 AM(UTC)
mi_keys

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 227
Applause Received: 359

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa Go to Quoted Post
What evidence do I need to present? You said I've offered none.


You don't NEED to do anything. You can post pictures of kittens blowing bubbles for all I care.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa Go to Quoted Post
The point that you and others haven't acknowledged when it comes to speed is that is a HUGE differentiator among scouts and GM's when they set out to draft talent... You seem to take issue with what NFL talent evaluators value very highly... I happen to be on the side of the guys who do this for a living that it is a vital component when looking at a prospect.


But then don't claim that everyone else is wrong and make some vain appeal to authority when the evidence doesn't back your assertions; and then act incredulous when people challenge your opinion.

BTW, Borland had several red flags including injury history. One team removed him from their board due to concern he'd have to have surgery again on his left shoulder where a screw from a past surgery has moved. He was still a 3rd rounder.
Born and bred a cheesehead
thanks Post received 1 applause.
play2win on 6/21/2014(UTC)
Offline nerdmann  
#48 Posted : Saturday, June 21, 2014 12:07:02 PM(UTC)
nerdmann

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,714
Applause Received: 665

I bet Janis beats out Harper. lol
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Offline play2win  
#49 Posted : Saturday, June 21, 2014 12:18:31 PM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

Originally Posted by: nerdmann Go to Quoted Post
I bet Janis beats out Harper. lol


That's the thing. Our WR unit is insanely deep right now. Harper could beat out Boykin, Adams could beat out Boykin. Janis could easily make the final 53. His size and speed are too good, and he showed some solid hands in securing passes. Who knows where this will go? Boykin will be in a real fight to stay the #3 WR.

I think Dorsey, White and Gillett have the biggest uphill battles. Chris Harper is definitely in the mix, and I think Abby and Janis are too.

Plus, Janis has a great 40 time.
Offline uffda udfa  
#50 Posted : Saturday, June 21, 2014 1:09:23 PM(UTC)
uffda udfa

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 4/25/2014(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 149
Applause Received: 150

Originally Posted by: mi_keys Go to Quoted Post
You don't NEED to do anything. You can post pictures of kittens blowing bubbles for all I care.



But then don't claim that everyone else is wrong and make some vain appeal to authority when the evidence doesn't back your assertions; and then act incredulous when people challenge your opinion.

BTW, Borland had several red flags including injury history. One team removed him from their board due to concern he'd have to have surgery again on his left shoulder where a screw from a past surgery has moved. He was still a 3rd rounder.


Almost everyone is wrong. 40 time is highly valued when it comes to the drafting of prospects. To skewer me for valuing them, also, is ironic.

The evidence doesn't back my assertions? No, there is no evidence that backs yours. It probably matters, though, exactly what issue we're debating. I'm pointing to the idea that the NFL community values 40 times very highly. Your rail against me, is perceived, by me, as a rail against the NFL community which I'm not a part of.

You can try to obfuscate the issues with Borland but you know his 40 time was a monumental negative against him. Let me interject Michael Sam into this discussion. This has been painted as an issue as something other than what it actually is. Go look at Michael Sam's 3 cone time and then see where it fits among other prospects. I don't need a lecture from you, and others, how 3 cone isn't really important. Just look at his number and do a little research and you'll have a giant hint as to why he went undrafted.

Will be interesting to see what the Packers value more... A big strong WR like Harper, or a speedy measurables guy like Janis. Unless Abbrederis goes Ricky Elmore, he's a lock to make the 53 to me.

Maybe, they'll value neither and both won't make it.


EDIT: Here's a GREAT piece on the 40's history:

Quote:
40 time history and evolution (mercurynews.com)With millions of dollars riding on a prospect's draft position and with draft position partly dependent on the 40, combine training centers have sprouted up across the country. Two of the best-known are the IMG Academy in Bradenton, Florida, and Athletes' Performance Institute in Phoenix.

"I look at it this way: Film and statistics are like a player's grade-point average, and the combine results are like the SATs," said Spitz, who attended Monte Vista High and was a hammer thrower at USC.

"And at the combine, the 40 is everything."

Message modified by user Saturday, June 21, 2014 1:45:10 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

UserPostedImage

It's one heckuva drug.
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
5 Pages<1234>»
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Tweeter

Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / texaspackerbacker

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Laser Gunns

21h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nyrpack

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / rabidgopher04

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann