PDA

View Full Version : Isn't 'production' in college the most important factor........


Chiefmanwillcatch
01-04-2008, 12:13 PM
for determining how a player will do on this level ?

We have been taking too many Dtackles that look good and do too many fu**ing reps at the bench press and being wow'd by that like some dumbasses.


It's time to find guys like Jared Allen who was bypassed by everyone.

Productive players. Enough with the combine muscle freaks who CAN'T play.

DaneMcCloud
01-04-2008, 12:25 PM
Jared Allen slipped because of an ill-advised drunken incident in high school, then again because of drunken immaturity in college. He was a "lo-character" guy.

Tank & Turk were taken exactly where they were projected by all of the draft pundits (actually, but were quite a bit lower than most projections. Tyler was a 2nd rounder on many mocks).

Amnorix
01-04-2008, 12:33 PM
for determining how a player will do on this level ?

We have been taking too many Dtackles that look good and do too many fu**ing reps at the bench press and being wow'd by that like some dumbasses.


It's time to find guys like Jared Allen who was bypassed by everyone.

Productive players. Enough with the combine muscle freaks who CAN'T play.

Not necessarily. I remember Richard Seymour got crucified here early on for only having 1.5 sacks his senior year or something. He's not a sack machine in the NFL either, but he is a beast of a defensive lineman in our scheme.

As usual, it's a combination of factors that should be looked at. Raw numbers alone don't do it. Neither does college performance (look at many college QBs with ridiculous stats).

OnTheWarpath58
01-04-2008, 12:50 PM
Jared Allen slipped because of an ill-advised drunken incident in high school, then again because of drunken immaturity in college. He was a "lo-character" guy.

Tank & Turk were taken exactly where they were projected by all of the draft pundits (actually, but were quite a bit lower than most projections. Tyler was a 2nd rounder on many mocks).

Tank was only a R2 projection because of character issues as well.

Several scouts said he was R1 talent, and that his past would haunt him on draft day.

I'd say falling to R3, they were right.

I'd still like to see that R1 talent out of him.

OnTheWarpath58
01-04-2008, 12:50 PM
Not necessarily. I remember Richard Seymour got crucified here early on for only having 1.5 sacks his senior year or something. He's not a sack machine in the NFL either, but he is a beast of a defensive lineman in our scheme.

As usual, it's a combination of factors that should be looked at. Raw numbers alone don't do it. Neither does college performance (look at many college QBs with ridiculous stats).

Agreed, 100%

Mr. Laz
01-04-2008, 12:57 PM
yes ... but the production has to translate to the NFL


Reesing for KU is productive ...... but he ain't gonna be an NFL QB.

nick reid for KU was productive but he is struggling to make the field now.


measurable count when you hit the NFL because everyone has talent.


coaching and fitting the scheme is HUGE when it comes to success in the NFL too. Everyone is so talented that fitting the scheme can be the difference maker.

Chiefnj2
01-04-2008, 01:07 PM
I'm starting to think that it's the "little" things in the scouting reports that matter. Things like "motor never stops", "always finishes plays", etc.

Allen was that type of player. Bowe was that type of player.

I would really start to shy away from guys that are inconsistent and don't always play hard every down. KC always seems to come out on the loser end with those players.

OnTheWarpath58
01-04-2008, 01:10 PM
I'm starting to think that it's the "little" things in the scouting reports that matter. Things like "motor never stops", "always finishes plays", etc.

Allen was that type of player. Bowe was that type of player.

I would really start to shy away from guys that are inconsistent and don't always play hard every down. KC always seems to come out on the loser end with those players.

Again, agree 100%

FAX
01-04-2008, 01:11 PM
Good question, Mr. Chiefmanwillgetyou. Unquestionably, scouts have to make a distinction between pure, measureable athletism and the projected ability to positively impact a game with those skills.

Actually, this is one aspect of Herm's approach with which I agree. He's said repeatedly that he's looking for "football players". I think that's good - on account of the fact we're in a football league.

FAX

bkkcoh
01-04-2008, 01:30 PM
yes ... but the production has to translate to the NFL


Reesing for KU is productive ...... but he ain't gonna be an NFL QB.

nick reid for KU was productive but he is struggling to make the field now.


measurable count when you hit the NFL because everyone has talent.


coaching and fitting the scheme is HUGE when it comes to success in the NFL too. Everyone is so talented that fitting the scheme can be the difference maker.


What about production against teams with great talent. How did they perform against top CB's if they are WR's and etc....

Were they a man among boys etc...

If they perform well against inferior talent, that doesn't mean anything.

What is the percentage of All-americans in college that end up having good pro careers??

Zouk
01-04-2008, 01:44 PM
I'm starting to think that it's the "little" things in the scouting reports that matter. Things like "motor never stops", "always finishes plays", etc.

Allen was that type of player. Bowe was that type of player.

I would really start to shy away from guys that are inconsistent and don't always play hard every down. KC always seems to come out on the loser end with those players.

All draftniks should read this - I think you nailed it.

Hog Farmer
01-04-2008, 01:45 PM
I think we should go for the weakest and dumbest, kind of like this thread.

Mr. Laz
01-04-2008, 01:49 PM
What about production against teams with great talent. How did they perform against top CB's if they are WR's and etc....

Were they a man among boys etc...

If they perform well against inferior talent, that doesn't mean anything.

What is the percentage of All-americans in college that end up having good pro careers??
yep ..... it's true

since most players never play against the game teams/players/coaches it doubly hard to judge how their production will translate to the NFL.


if it was easy ... if there was something concrete then the draft wouldn't full of busts.


don't forget about mental toughness either ..... the mental game and the level of commitment and discipline is completely different once they get into the NFL. A player has somebody hold his hand and tell him want to do in college but has to be self-motivated in the NFL.

Amnorix
01-04-2008, 01:56 PM
One factor that probably all of us amateurs under-rate, in part because we can't find out by either watching the college game on TV or by watching the combine -- is the "coachability" of the player. Will he take coaching? Does he act like a know it all, or seem the type to think that his God-given talent is enough?

Players vary widely on coachability and football intelligence. No college player knows much of anything when they arrive in the NFL, and his willingness to be coached will help determine whether and when they become a productive NFL player.

FAX
01-04-2008, 01:58 PM
One factor that probably all of us amateurs under-rate, in part because we can't find out by either watching the college game on TV or by watching the combine -- is the "coachability" of the player. Will he take coaching? Does he act like a know it all, or seem the type to think that his God-given talent is enough?

Players vary widely on coachability and football intelligence. No college player knows much of anything when they arrive in the NFL, and his willingness to be coached will help determine whether and when they become a productive NFL player.

That's easy for you to say.

In our world, much depends on the actual coach doing the actual coaching, Mr. Amnorix.

FAX