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.
Originally Posted by: uffda udfa
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.
Most guys who run 4.65+ aren't going to be WR's. Correct?
Originally Posted by: uffda udfa
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.
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.
Originally Posted by: uffda udfa
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.
However, I think he'd be an even better and more attractive one if he ran 4.36. Right?
Originally Posted by: uffda udfa
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.
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.
Originally Posted by: uffda udfa
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.
I'm not sure what the issue is with drafting it instead of UDFA'ing it?
Originally Posted by: uffda udfa
No one said there's an issue with drafting speed.
Again, I was hopeful we'd find guys who were great prospects up high who had very good speed.
Originally Posted by: uffda udfa
No issue with people having a personal preference for speed.
We did not. We found two bottom end guys speed wise. That's disappointing to me...
Originally Posted by: uffda udfa
Ok.
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.
Originally Posted by: uffda udfa
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.
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.
Originally Posted by: uffda udfa
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