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

    • 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.  
    • KC followed the blue print Phil and Jax laid out (and even the Bengals early on) to double TY, and it worked. We played teams with crappy Os last year. This year we play 7 of the top 11 Os from last year. We can't afford to be shut down like KC did to us. If we get down early, we're one dimensional, and more times than not, we're going to lose. We have zero proven weapons receiving besides TY and Ebron (and Doyle if he can stay healthy) at this point. 
  • Members

  • Create New...