Jump to content
  • ×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • MJ was drafted in 16. He's been injured 2 of his 3 years. Played 15 games, and was targeted 16 times in those games. Prior to signing as an undrafted FA, he was at TX. Didn't do a lot there. He's always had outstanding measurables, just wasn't reliable.    didn't get a combine invite. here's his rookie profile.    https://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2016/5/30/11809802/eagles-rookie-profile-marcus-johnson-texas-wide-receiver-longhorns-profile-nfl-draft-2016
    • I said I understood his point of view. I don't devalue players like you seem to do. Players earn their spot and develop. It's that simple.
    • As far as I know, they use the same process for their NFL evaluations as they do for their college evaluations.    Now the additional component here is the projection, because their NFL grades are descriptive of the performance, while the draft big boards are predictive, which of course adds some uncertainty and projection about the prospects transition into the league.    I would love to see their correlation numbers(but they are not public so...) because they've been introducing some new things into their projections - for example, they've said they've been studying what translates from college to NFL and what doesn't... for example - pass-blocking for OTs seem to translate better than run-blocking ... clean pocket passing translates and is more stable than off-script plays for the QBs, pressures/win%/college grade translate more than sacks for DL, etc. Then you add athleticism to the mix... and things can get murky.    In general my biggest beef with their boards has been that they seem to overemphasize what the player is right now and don't seem to put enough emphasis on developmental upside. Although... as I say that I look at DK Metcalf being their no. 1 ranked WR while sporting a grade of about 70... (while most other projected day 1 and day 2 receivers are in the 80-90 range), so... maybe they've been changing their projections a bit... I don't know.   
    • what was your point then? you were supporting choe's suggestion that we don't need O weapons, because we have XX already and Ballard sees something in them because they are on the roster. why wouldn't you apply that logic to everyone on the roster?   no spin. it's logic. but please explain.
    • People love to talk about how smart Rick Venturi is, and he is.  However, if you look at his record as a head coach it’s not good, that just reminds me even bad football people are way smarter than anyone posting here when it comes to football.  
  • Members

    • cbear

      cbear 708

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Tombstone

      Tombstone 69

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • DillyDilly

      DillyDilly 870

      Senior Members
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • fanoftheteam

      fanoftheteam 11

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NewColtsFan

      NewColtsFan 18,545

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Irish YJ

      Irish YJ 350

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Buck Showalter

      Buck Showalter 3,682

      Moderators
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...