Today 12/27 Mel Kiper says.......

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Molitoth

Basically all Kiper/Mcshay/Mayock do is look at measurables.

They cannot however measure the intangibles like leadership, heart, determination, etc.

Originally Posted by RunKC

Can't wait until Tyler Wilson skyrockets this spring and we take him. The kids football IQ, talent and toughness will shine at the Senior Bowl and combine.

What will set him apart is his leadership. There is not a better leader in this class than Tyler Wilson.

Molitoth - do you now see how stupid your post looks when put into context?

Get that shit out of here - leadership is a litmus test, not a driving factor. What wins in this league is talent and yes, you can measure talent. Russell Wilson doesn't win because of "heart" or "determination", he wins because he's a foolishly great athlete with great instincts and sense for the position. I underestimated his potential because of his size and accuracy concerns - I clearly didn't do enough homework.

This Olympics-style human interest shit bores me to tears. Physical talent and intelligence wins ballgames. Leadership can put you over the hump, but we'll worry about that when we get there. Dan Marino was dumb as a hammer and a shit leader, but he won ballgames. Terry Bradshaw was a lazy hillbilly and won 4 Super Bowls. Ryan Fitzpatrick is brilliant and he sucks. Matt Cassel, by all accounts, works as hard as anyone and is as 'determined' as Tom Brady to not blow - he still does.

Blah blah blah - they don't look for heart - blah. Bullshit. Determination does show up on tape and drive shows up in interviews. The good evaluators spot that stuff, the bad ones don't.

Mel Kiper is lazy and doesn't do his homework, it's really as simple as that.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Molitoth - do you now see how stupid your post looks when put into context?

Get that shit out of here - leadership is a litmus test, not a driving factor. What wins in this league is talent and yes, you can measure talent. Russell Wilson doesn't win because of "heart" or "determination", he wins because he's a foolishly great athlete with great instincts and sense for the position. I underestimated his potential because of his size and accuracy concerns - I clearly didn't do enough homework.

This Olympics-style human interest shit bores me to tears. Physical talent and intelligence wins ballgames. Leadership can put you over the hump, but we'll worry about that when we get there. Dan Marino was dumb as a hammer and a shit leader, but he won ballgames. Terry Bradshaw was a lazy hillbilly and won 4 Super Bowls. Ryan Fitzpatrick is brilliant and he sucks. Matt Cassel, by all accounts, works as hard as anyone and is as 'determined' as Tom Brady to not blow - he still does.

Blah blah blah - they don't look for heart - blah. Bullshit. Determination does show up on tape and drive shows up in interviews. The good evaluators spot that stuff, the bad ones don't.

Mel Kiper is lazy and doesn't do his homework, it's really as simple as that.

The Marino reference is interesting - there's a reason he set a few dozen NFL records but doesn't have a ring.

The "it" factor is what separates the Montana's from the Marino's. it's what separates Aaron Rodgers from Jay Cutler.

Heart, determination, poise under pressure - they all ABSOLUTELY matter.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

The Marino reference is interesting - there's a reason he set a few dozen NFL records but doesn't have a ring.

The "it" factor is what separates the Montana's from the Marino's. it's what separates Aaron Rodgers from Jay Cutler.

Heart, determination, poise under pressure - they all ABSOLUTELY matter.

They matter, but in the margins. And ultimately, a ton of it is rear-view mirror analysis. Brett Favre is 'a leader' but had he not had Reggie White on his team, we'd look back at him as a dipshit rube gunslinger that frat-boyed the Packers out of a championship or two.

If John Elway doesn't get Terrel Davis in the backfield, he's still a punchline.

We call those guys great leaders in hindsight because they won, but it's a Chicken/egg argument, IMO.

There are a handful of truly great leaders that have come into the league. Montana is among them and perhaps Brady as well. Those guys are outliers and not what you demand in a QB.

I don't think either Manning falls into that category and I'm not convinced Rodgers does either. Those are just excellent QBs with insane talent. What separates Rodgers from Cutler is accuracy, decisionmaking and to a lesser degree, mobility. Oh, and Cutler is revered by his teammates, for what it's worth. Folks in Chicago say that his leadership in that lockerroom is superlative. But sometimes he's just a goddamn lunatic on the field and thats why they don't win.

What kept Marino from a Super Bowl was no running game and no pass rush. Had he had either of those things, he'd have gotten a ring or two and we wouldn't be blitzing him as a shitty leader, just as we don't blitz Elway or Favre.

A complete lack of leadership and character will kill a QB, look at Fatmarcus. But most of them have enough to pass the litmus test question. At that point its talent and decisionmaking - which you can see on the tape.

The panting 'leader' platitudes are for national talking heads that love to analyze in the rearview rather than do their homework ahead of time.

[CoMoChief]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

They matter, but in the margins. And ultimately, a ton of it is rear-view mirror analysis. Brett Favre is 'a leader' but had he not had Reggie White on his team, we'd look back at him as a dipshit rube gunslinger that frat-boyed the Packers out of a championship or two.

If John Elway doesn't get Terrel Davis in the backfield, he's still a punchline.

We call those guys great leaders in hindsight because they won, but it's a Chicken/egg argument, IMO.

There are a handful of truly great leaders that have come into the league. Montana is among them and perhaps Brady as well. Those guys are outliers and not what you demand in a QB.

I don't think either Manning falls into that category and I'm not convinced Rodgers does either. Those are just excellent QBs with insane talent. What separates Rodgers from Cutler is accuracy, decisionmaking and to a lesser degree, mobility. Oh, and Cutler is revered by his teammates, for what it's worth. Folks in Chicago say that his leadership in that lockerroom is superlative. But sometimes he's just a goddamn lunatic on the field and thats why they don't win.

What kept Marino from a Super Bowl was no running game and no pass rush. Had he had either of those things, he'd have gotten a ring or two and we wouldn't be blitzing him as a shitty leader, just as we don't blitz Elway or Favre.

A complete lack of leadership and character will kill a QB, look at Fatmarcus. But most of them have enough to pass the litmus test question. At that point its talent and decisionmaking - which you can see on the tape.

The panting 'leader' platitudes are for national talking heads that love to analyze in the rearview rather than do their homework ahead of time.

RB's in that Broncos running scheme are/were expendable...they were churning out 1,000 yd backs like it was nothing after TD. Broncos would have been fine and IMO still would have made the SB.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by CoMoChief

RB's in that Broncos running scheme are/were expendable...they were churning out 1,000 yd backs like it was nothing after TD. Broncos would have been fine and IMO still would have made the SB.

Eh, not really.

Sure, they still turned out 1,000 yd backs, but not 1,700 and 2k yard backs like Davis was putting out there. I mean you're talking about the difference between a decent runningback (say Ahmad Bradshaw) and a great one (like AP).

They would've still had a decent running game, but not an elite one. With a declining Elway and without Davis at the absolute apex of his game (again, we're talking about almost 1,900 yds/season in those 2 SB years), I don't think that team wins a SB.

And in either event, if you think it was the Denver system that won them the SB, then is John Elway now a system QB? Regardless of how they got it, they do not win a SB without that running game.

It wasn't that Elway suddenly learned to be a leader, it was that he was given the tools to win and was able to do so in the twilight of his career.

Leadership is an after-acquired trait. We put the label on people after they win. Which tells me that it's largely mythical.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

They matter, but in the margins. And ultimately, a ton of it is rear-view mirror analysis. Brett Favre is 'a leader' but had he not had Reggie White on his team, we'd look back at him as a dipshit rube gunslinger that frat-boyed the Packers out of a championship or two.

If John Elway doesn't get Terrel Davis in the backfield, he's still a punchline.

We call those guys great leaders in hindsight because they won, but it's a Chicken/egg argument, IMO.

There are a handful of truly great leaders that have come into the league. Montana is among them and perhaps Brady as well. Those guys are outliers and not what you demand in a QB.

I don't think either Manning falls into that category and I'm not convinced Rodgers does either. Those are just excellent QBs with insane talent. What separates Rodgers from Cutler is accuracy, decisionmaking and to a lesser degree, mobility. Oh, and Cutler is revered by his teammates, for what it's worth. Folks in Chicago say that his leadership in that lockerroom is superlative. But sometimes he's just a goddamn lunatic on the field and thats why they don't win.

What kept Marino from a Super Bowl was no running game and no pass rush. Had he had either of those things, he'd have gotten a ring or two and we wouldn't be blitzing him as a shitty leader, just as we don't blitz Elway or Favre.

A complete lack of leadership and character will kill a QB, look at Fatmarcus. But most of them have enough to pass the litmus test question. At that point its talent and decisionmaking - which you can see on the tape.

The panting 'leader' platitudes are for national talking heads that love to analyze in the rearview rather than do their homework ahead of time.

I concur with this post.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

What wins in this league is talent and yes, you can measure talent.

Exactly why the majority of fans should have been reaching for torches and pitchforks when Pioli spouted one of his first cliches: "We're looking for the right 53, not the best 53."

What a line of ****ing horse shit, and he's been exposed terribly because of his belief in this farce.

Keep the "right 53," Scott, and I'll take the best 53 and beat your ****ing ass every single Sunday.

I'm hopeful that the Pioli failure has caused us, collectively, to wise up; great teams need sizzle.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Exactly why the majority of fans should have been reaching for torches and pitchforks when Pioli spouted one of his first cliches: "We're looking for the right 53, not the best 53."

What a line of ****ing horse shit, and he's been exposed terribly because of his belief in this farce.

Keep the "right 53," Scott, and I'll take the best 53 and beat your ****ing ass every single Sunday.

I'm hopeful that the Pioli failure has caused us, collectively, to wise up; great teams need sizzle.

Is Russell Wilson actually a shitty leader?

Afterall, when the team needs leadership most - road games - he's decidedly pedestrian. His Seahawks have a 3-5 road record. Is he less determined on the road? Does he show less heart? Of course not.

No, Wilson isn't a shitty leader. Nor do I think he's ****ing General Patton out there. He reaches the threshhold level of leadership ability required to be a productive NFL quarterback. He's in that nice comfortable area between Montana and Cassel where you separate yourself on your talent. He has more talent than I thought because I was lazy and didn't watch him play enough last year. My bad.

Stop drafting for leadership. Make sure your board is full of guys that rise above a Ryan Leaf level of ****off and actually care about football (which you can see by their play on the field), and select the one off that list with the most talent.

It's not that hard to spot if you're willing to do the work to see it. Kiper doesn't do that anymore.

[RunKC]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Get that shit out of here - leadership is a litmus test, not a driving factor. What wins in this league is talent and yes, you can measure talent. Russell Wilson doesn't win because of "heart" or "determination", he wins because he's a foolishly great athlete with great instincts and sense for the position. I underestimated his potential because of his size and accuracy concerns - I clearly didn't do enough homework.

Russell Wilson's leadership does more than help them win. He went to Wisconsin and called a team meeting and said "I'm here to win and **** you if you don't want to follow my lead". And then what did he do? He did the same thing in Seattle. He's a 5'11" midget who towers over everybody in the locker room because of his leadership. They follow him and believe in him.

That's the difference between Russell Wilson and clowns like Matt Stafford and Jay Cutler. I don't give a **** if they can throw the ball a mile or if they are built like an ox.

I'll take a QB who has good but not great physical attributes with incredible intangibles over a QB who has incredible physical attributes and questionable intangles any day.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by RunKC

Russell Wilson's leadership does more than help them win. He went to Wisconsin and called a team meeting and said "I'm here to win and **** you if you don't want to follow my lead". And then what did he do? He did the same thing in Seattle. He's a 5'11" midget who towers over everybody in the locker room because of his leadership. They follow him and believe in him.

That's the difference between Russell Wilson and clowns like Matt Stafford and Jay Cutler. I don't give a **** if they can throw the ball a mile or if they are built like an ox.

I'll take a QB who has good but not great physical attributes with incredible intangibles over a QB who has incredible physical attributes and questionable intangles any day.

So they bail on him on the road then, eh?

Matt Stafford threw for the 5th highest yardage total NFL history last season. He is not the problem in Detroit. As for Cutler, again, by most accounts his teammates will run through walls for him. But the media has pasted this 'diva' label on him and suddenly shit that Brady would get fellated for gets him excoriated. Cutler's problem isn't 'leadership', it's the fact that he's never seen a throw he didn't like (or an offensive lineman he did). He's a questionable decisionmaker and that sometimes burns him. That's it.

The leader label is a horseshit mythology we attach to people in hindsight. There are very few QBs in the history of this league that won because of their leadership (again, Montana, Brady and a few others probably qualify). Most of them were simply capable leaders with exceptional talent.

[Molitoth]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Molitoth - do you now see how stupid your post looks when put into context?

Get that shit out of here - leadership is a litmus test, not a driving factor. What wins in this league is talent and yes, you can measure talent. Russell Wilson doesn't win because of "heart" or "determination", he wins because he's a foolishly great athlete with great instincts and sense for the position. I underestimated his potential because of his size and accuracy concerns - I clearly didn't do enough homework.

This Olympics-style human interest shit bores me to tears. Physical talent and intelligence wins ballgames. Leadership can put you over the hump, but we'll worry about that when we get there. Dan Marino was dumb as a hammer and a shit leader, but he won ballgames. Terry Bradshaw was a lazy hillbilly and won 4 Super Bowls. Ryan Fitzpatrick is brilliant and he sucks. Matt Cassel, by all accounts, works as hard as anyone and is as 'determined' as Tom Brady to not blow - he still does.

Blah blah blah - they don't look for heart - blah. Bullshit. Determination does show up on tape and drive shows up in interviews. The good evaluators spot that stuff, the bad ones don't.

Mel Kiper is lazy and doesn't do his homework, it's really as simple as that.

I don't think I look stupid at all.

Tell me Russel Wilson wasn't judged on his size and measurables vs his leadership and desire to be great.

Kiper likes gooseneck because he is 2930 feet tall.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Molitoth

I don't think I look stupid at all.

Tell me Russel Wilson wasn't judged on his size and measurables vs his leadership and desire to be great.

Kiper likes gooseneck because he is 2930 feet tall.

His leadership and 'desire to be great' have not one damn thing to do with his success.

Matt Cassel would love to be great and it just doesn't matter. Tim Tebow is an exceptional leader and would probably be one of those guys that cuts off a digit if it made him a better player. Doesn't matter - still sucks.

What makes Wilson this good is his talent and decisionmaking. He was judged on his size rather than his talent, that is true. His downfield arm and especially his intermediate accuracy was questioned because he wasn't a big passer.

Your descriptions are just worthless flowery prose designed to cover national pundits that couldn't bring themselves to admit that they just didn't look at the tape closely enough.

All of this was available to see if you looked for it. Guys like Kiper (and myself) just hate to admit it.

[Molitoth]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

His leadership and 'desire to be great' have not one damn thing to do with his success.

Matt Cassel would love to be great and it just doesn't matter. Tim Tebow is an exceptional leader and would probably be one of those guys that cuts off a digit if it made him a better player. Doesn't matter - still sucks.

What makes Wilson this good is his talent and decisionmaking. He was judged on his size rather than his talent, that is true. His downfield arm and especially his intermediate accuracy was questioned because he wasn't a big passer.

Your descriptions are just worthless flowery prose designed to cover national pundits that couldn't bring themselves to admit that they just didn't look at the tape closely enough.

All of this was available to see if you looked for it. Guys like Kiper (and myself) just hate to admit it.

I understand your point, but I think you complete whiffed on mine.
How can you argue with me that the media scouts put way too much emphasis on measurables (size, weight, 40times, etc) when doing their rankings/mocks?

After watching Glennon vs Geno film, I cannot understand WTF Kiper is thinking except that Glennon is a giraffe.

[whoman69]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

His leadership and 'desire to be great' have not one damn thing to do with his success.

Matt Cassel would love to be great and it just doesn't matter. Tim Tebow is an exceptional leader and would probably be one of those guys that cuts off a digit if it made him a better player. Doesn't matter - still sucks.

What makes Wilson this good is his talent and decisionmaking. He was judged on his size rather than his talent, that is true. His downfield arm and especially his intermediate accuracy was questioned because he wasn't a big passer.

Your descriptions are just worthless flowery prose designed to cover national pundits that couldn't bring themselves to admit that they just didn't look at the tape closely enough.

All of this was available to see if you looked for it. Guys like Kiper (and myself) just hate to admit it.

Jay Cutler has all those physical things you talk about. He doesn't have that leadership or desire to be great. Where has it gotten him?