mi_keys
10 years ago

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
+4
uffda udfa
10 years ago
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
Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."


StarrMax1
10 years ago


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.

uffda udfa
10 years ago

I'm lost,

I was looking for opinions on Chris Harper.

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

Originally Posted by: StarrMax1 



Slow. 😆

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.
UserPostedImage
Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."


StarrMax1
10 years ago

Slow. 😆

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.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



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.



play2win
10 years ago

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.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



For F sake! Quit your bitching. You've said all of this enough already.
+1
mi_keys
10 years ago

What evidence do I need to present? You said I've offered none.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



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

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.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



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
+1
nerdmann
10 years ago
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.”
play2win
10 years ago

I bet Janis beats out Harper. lol

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 



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.
uffda udfa
10 years ago

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.

Originally Posted by: mi_keys 



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:

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."

UserPostedImage
Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."


Similar Topics
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    Zero2Cool (10m) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
    beast (11m) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
    Zero2Cool (1h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
    Zero2Cool (1h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
    packerfanoutwest (1h) : ok I stand corrected
    Zero2Cool (1h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
    Zero2Cool (1h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
    beast (1h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
    beast (1h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
    Zero2Cool (1h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
    beast (1h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
    beast (1h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
    beast (1h) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs
    Zero2Cool (1h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
    Zero2Cool (1h) : I literally just said it.
    packerfanoutwest (1h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
    Zero2Cool (1h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.
    Zero2Cool (1h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.
    packerfanoutwest (1h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what
    Zero2Cool (1h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.
    packerfanoutwest (1h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in
    packerfanoutwest (1h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker
    packerfanoutwest (1h) : if bucs win out they win their division
    beast (2h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us
    packerfanoutwest (2h) : falcons are already ahead of us
    beast (2h) : Packers will get in
    beast (2h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen
    packerfanoutwest (2h) : they still are in the playoffs
    packerfanoutwest (2h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7
    Zero2Cool (4h) : We can say it. We don't play.
    Mucky Tundra (5h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints
    Mucky Tundra (5h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games
    Mucky Tundra (5h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.
    buckeyepackfan (6h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.
    Mucky Tundra (15h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan
    beast (15h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings
    bboystyle (15h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in
    Mucky Tundra (18h) : Or ties, but let's be real here
    Mucky Tundra (18h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses
    Mucky Tundra (18h) : Needed a Falcons loss for a Seahawk loss to clinch
    buckeyepackfan (19h) : Am I wring in saying if Tge Vikings beat The Seahawks, The Packers clinch?
    Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : Agreed; you stinks
    Zero2Cool (21-Dec) : I'm not beating anyone. I stinks.
    Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : rough injury for tank dell. guy can't catch abreak
    beast (21-Dec) : So far the college playoffs have sucked... One team absolutely dominates the other
    beast (21-Dec) : Well even if you weren't positive towards a guy, you wouldn't nessarily want to tell the media that (if they don't know about it)
    Martha Careful (21-Dec) : I think MLF want Love to look past the end half issues, and feel good about his play. Our coaches generally keep a very positive tone.
    beast (21-Dec) : I think a great running game will do that for most QBs
    packerfanoutwest (21-Dec) : Coach Matt LaFleur has said quarterback Jordan Love is playing the best football of his career.
    beast (21-Dec) : Oh, that's how you keep beating buckeye, with cheating
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2024 Packers Schedule
    Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
    Eagles
    29 - 34
    Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
    COLTS
    16 - 10
    Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
    Titans
    30 - 14
    Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    29 - 31
    Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
    Rams
    24 - 19
    Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
    CARDINALS
    34 - 13
    Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
    TEXANS
    24 - 22
    Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Jaguars
    30 - 27
    Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    14 - 24
    Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
    Bears
    20 - 19
    Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
    49ERS
    38 - 10
    Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
    DOLPHINS
    30 - 17
    Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
    Lions
    31 - 34
    Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
    Seahawks
    30 - 13
    Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
    SAINTS
    Sunday, Dec 29 @ 12:00 PM
    Vikings
    Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
    BEARS
    Recent Topics
    16m / Random Babble / Martha Careful

    30m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

    19-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

    16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    16-Dec / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Mucky Tundra

    16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.