OffensivelyPC

Senior Member
  • Content count

    7,496
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

OffensivelyPC last won the day on April 18

OffensivelyPC had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5,149 Hall of Famer

About OffensivelyPC

  • Birthday 09/22/1984

Uncategorized

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

13,334 profile views
  1. OffensivelyPC

    Supes 2018 draft analysis

    I disagree that he won't be a full time back. He won't be initially, but he's got enough build for it to happen. He runs like he's Frank Gore, and minus 14 pounds, he has the body of Frank Gore.
  2. OffensivelyPC

    Never draft a Georgia Bulldog

    I'm sure the guy that stole it was interested in nothing but pawning it off at a local pawn shop. I HIGHLY doubt teams send private investigators to follow other players to see if and when they can steal confidential information on other teams. Second, this is not a reflection on education level. People forget to lock the doors sometimes. It happens to the best of us.
  3. Whats funny is he's been on since you've resurrected this thing
  4. I agree with you, but I will add one thing - separation is a multi-faceted concept. Gaining separation through route running is the primary concept that most of us think of, but the ability to position your body and win contested catches is, at least in my opinion, also separation. It's just not what most of us think of. Certainly, though, the attribute of creating separation through speed and running routes with strong breaks and effective fakes takes precedence over fighting of body positioning Still, whether it's route running and athleticism or body positioning, either of which results in a throw where the QB can place it only where the WR can snag it has value, particularly when we are talking about where on the field the ball is thrown. Dante Pettis in between the 20s might have more value than Courtland Sutton on the sideline and redzone throws. But in the red zone and 3rd and mid-long, Courtland Sutton might have the advantage. It's all about scheme and the QBs strengths (not to mention, of course, the WRs strengths). When I look for a receiver, I'm looking at both (and this goes back to the analytics and where it has some merit, but not the entire merit), but I have to assume the QB can make the desired throw - not the collegiate QB, but in the NFL. Receiver 1 might create separation for YAC and gain a first down over the middle of the field, but Receiver 2 could run a deeper route and win up high or over the sidelines. Put those two things together and you have a means to achieve the goal for that play. Of course, we all know football isn't an equation and any number of things can go wrong, the QB doesn't set right, pressure comes up the middle or outside, the player in coverage is holding the receiver and doesn't get called, or he makes a spectacular play. None of these things compute mathematically, and that's precisely because football can't be reduced to equations except maybe probability. Naturally, you have coaches and scouts who develop their preferences based on what they see and take in the analytics and athletic measurements as a confirming measure of what you see on tape. They may lean towards the tape or the analytics a little heavier than the other, but to disregard one in favor of the other is folly, and that's what I think the guys on the podcast got wrong.
  5. LOL it's so funny you mention that. I was legit listening to that podcast on my way home from work yesterday and I was like, man I wonder if he heard that podcast. I heard what they were saying and I just rolled my eyes. When I sat back and thought about it, they did have a point, just not the dispositive point.
  6. LOL at we all in. But to your other point, i agree somewhat. What I think the great coverage analytics seem to assume is a competent pass rush. Weve all seen Brady sit in the pocket for 10 seconds and throw to a wide open whomever. Where a average or good pass rush might cut it down short enough where the QB must either run, be forced to throw or run, you just cant expect great coverage past the initial routes naturally breaking down - someone EVENTUALLY gets open. I do agree a bad CB getting burned opens up the possibility of a huge play. But that is masked by a better pass rush. Even if the Colts had an excellent secondary, I just cant agree it is more important than a great pass rush, analytics aside. If anything, the two things are interdependent - you need them both working in concert. I think from a team valuation standpoint, GMs see the edge rushers as most important because they are paid the highest and rarely hit the market, whereas even top tier CBs find their way to free agency with just a little more regularity. Its not an end to the debate, of course, but I think the truest analysis would result in saying if coverage is bad, great pass rush is diminished and if the pass rush is bad, great coverage is marginalized. You need competent functionality from both for sustained success.
  7. OffensivelyPC

    Simple question. How do you not take Courtland Sutton?

    LOL. Good, you dont need to be there anyway...make room for real fans. Let us know if you dont understand and we wont care.
  8. OffensivelyPC

    Not taking Mo Hurst......

    I mean, when the Raiders picked him, I was not at all surprised. From a talent standpoint, it was almost certainly one of the steals of the draft. But like you said, could die on the field (I assume anyway). I wouldn't want to be the team dragged through the news if that were to ever happen. What should they have done, what could they have done, why didn't they pass on him like everyone else? They'd be crucified and the next victim of the media's charge against the "impossibly safe NFL."
  9. I still didn't get them passing up Chubb for Denzel Ward. Perhaps we'll see in the upcoming years. If he ends up being a lockdown corner, it makes more sense. Still it wasn't a terrible reach - though Garrett and Chubb on the ends would have been, I think, a devastating combination.
  10. Haha, I still believe Josh Allen is not the answer, and I was kinda sorta right about the not taking Lamar Jackson until the second - he was one pick away. Still, you all were correct about reaching for QBs, as much as I didn't want to do it. Still it turns out about half of my draft picks were reaches from a few picks to almost a full round so it's not like I ended up not reaching for anything LOL.
  11. And he still could wind up being the best QB of the class, none of them have stepped on the field. If everything pans out where they all hit their potential, it c ould be as simple as one guy is better one year and the other guy is better the next year. We'll see. No doubt this was a fun draft class.
  12. Well, and there were a ton of people who thought he was the best player in the draft. If you're wrong, hey - it's just because someone saw things a little differently. I mean, the guy did go No. 2 overall. That's close enough to say you were almost right.
  13. Most guys just come back next year making the same claims about a new guy, and when they get called out for being wrong the previous year, it's conveniently ignored at best, meticulously excused at worst. Not a soul would care if someone was like "Yeah, I was dead wrong last year, but here's why I'm right this year." Instead we get, "I would've been right if the Browns FO didn't suck so bad like it does every year, but this year blah blah blah."
  14. He ran a 4.46 and a 5.2 at his pro day. 39 inches on his pro day This was a common criticism and his drop rate was a little more than I gave him credit for, which I suppose is understandable since at the time, there were only a handful of film cut ups of him This was why he was drafted mid second round. As time went along, people began to wise up on this guy's ability to run routes, even some of the more nuanced routes, and how he set up his defenders. Late first was always high, but early-mid 2nd? Before any scouting reports? Back before it was cool? I had to pat myself on the back.