*****The Leo Chenal Thread*****

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

I don't think it's the be-all-end-all, but I don't think it's stupid, either.

If there's a WR that's 6'3" 215, runs a 4.3 and has elite explosion measurements (10 yd splits, etc.) then isn't he more likely to be harder to deal with than a 5'9" 180 lb. guy with the same speed and quickness?

I mean, the bigger, faster, stronger guy wins, all things being equal. And that's the point of RAS.

Now, it's not the end word; an individuals peculiarities all matter too-their work ethic, their intelligence, etc.

But saying it's dumb is off base, in my opinion.

The problem is when that that 6'3'' guy has WORSE explosion measurements than a 5'11'' guy.

RAS is going to favor the 6'3'' guy and by a fair amount. Moreover, it calls itself an 'athletic' score but in the end its emphasis on height and weight actually diminishes the athletic side of the equation.

Someone can have better athletic skills across the board but the taller and/or heavier guy will have the better 'Athletic Score' despite clearly being less athletic. He's just taller.

I've simply never seen it used by anyone in a reasonably productive manner. It's just 'HOLY SHIT, LOOK AT THE RAS ON THIS GUY!' as though it's dispositive of his athleticism. A lot of the time it isn't - it's determined more by his height than his athleticism.

Wanna call it a 'height adjusted composite index' or something like that and I'll be less down on it. Or if people would use it more like they do PFF where they give it an extremely healthy degree of skepticism but acknowledge that it may be useful in small doses or in close questions or with substantial context added - okay.

But all these Tweets were 'oh my god, this guy taken in the 7th round has a better RAS than Luke Keuchly!' -- for ****'s sake, folks. Shouldn't that make you question the metric?