Is Larry Fitzgerald Still A Top 12 WR Talent Wise?

[NFLExpert49]

Just now, ET80 said:

Exactly - might look like bad route running, but he quickly corrects it by going into the timing aspect of the route. That's not even football based, it's basic English. Is that the issue here? Are we speaking in a language that you're not comprehending?

Holy hell, did you even READ what I posted?

I’ll start with Julio Jones because he can basically do everything. 

I'm really starting to think it's a communication issue with this argument. You're typing a bunch of stuff, you're not reading it or understanding it.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

He's saying that while Fitzgerald isn't technically a good route runner, his choices set up the timing, which makes him effective. Your reading comprehension is appalling.

When he said, Jones "can basically do everything," he meant the following:

"He has great hands, great speed, he can leap up and ****** the ball out of the air — he has the all-around game you want in a wide receiver. There are no weaknesses in his game."

How do I know? Because that's his very next sentence. 

And he's simply wrong about Fitzgerald in that regard, as the numbers prove. Fitzgerald has the hands the ability to leap up and ****** the ball. He doesn't have the speed.

Sherman never described either of them as great route runners/quick out of their breaks.

Here's what he says about Doug Baldwin, however:

"For Doug, it all starts at the line of scrimmage. I think he has some of the most explosive releases in the league. But also, at the top of his route, no matter what the route might be, he’s equally explosive. We can talk about hand fighting and changing speeds and physicality all we want. But when it comes to Doug, it’s all about creativity."

 

 

[Superman(DH23)]

16 minutes ago, NFLExpert49 said:

And what does that have to do with route running, which every team practices constantly? 

The lack of logic and reasoning abilities from people in this thread is unreal. 

Re: Gholston: That's called, "lazy and doesn't listen to coaches, and didn't play as a result." The guys who play and make rosters are the guys who don't ignore coaches. 

Except they dont.  First, id like to encourage you to go attend an actual nfl practice so you can see for yourself how little time is actually spent running routes.  Second i want you to go look at what 95% of peewee all to the college are running as offenses.  Then if you can go find an nfl playbook and take a look at what they are doing in comparison.  Then understand that a large portion of nfl wrs didnt play wr until hs at the earliest.  Many didnt play the position before college.  They are responsible themselves for learning the nuances and technique of route running on their own time.

[NFLExpert49]

Just now, Superman(DH23) said:

Except they dont.  First, id like to encourage you to go attend an actual nfl practice so you can see for yourself how little time is actually spent running routes.  Second i want you to go look at what 95% of peewee all to the college are running as offenses.  Then if you can go find an nfl playbook and take a look at what they are doing in comparison.  Then understand that a large portion of nfl wrs didnt play wr until hs at the earliest.  Many didnt play the position before college.  They are responsible themselves for learning the nuances and technique of route running on their own time.

Oh man. You are so clueless it's unbelievable.

NFL receivers spend hours nearly every single day practicing routes. Most of the time players spend at practice is with their position coaches. 

Who said anything about peewee? What are you even babbling about? 

But I mean, I'm talking to the guy who said that the difference between Tom Waddle and Randy Moss is that Waddle had nowhere near the technique of Moss, since everybody in the NFL is a great athlete and it's all about technique, so why should I be surprised? 

[ET80]

3 minutes ago, NFLExpert49 said:

He's saying that while Fitzgerald isn't technically a good route runner, his choices set up the timing, which makes him effective. Your reading comprehension is appalling.

Hmm...

"Some people might mistake this for poor route running."

"Mistake" is the operative word here, bud. Mistake. As in "It's a MISTAKE to think Fitzgerald runs poor routes."

And this dude tries to tell me my reading comprehension is bad, haha. 

6 minutes ago, NFLExpert49 said:

And he's simply wrong about Fitzgerald in that regard, as the numbers prove.

Ok, this guy and his scout friend (Scouty McScoutster) know more than a former All Pro CB. Welp, I've heard it all now.

 

 

[ET80]

8 minutes ago, NFLExpert49 said:

Sherman never described either of them as great route runners/quick out of their breaks.

He doesn't have to because he already stated they can do it all.

[NFLExpert49]

2 minutes ago, ET80 said:

Hmm...

"Some people might mistake this for poor route running."

"Mistake" is the operative word here, bud. Mistake. As in "It's a MISTAKE to think Fitzgerald runs poor routes."

And this dude tries to tell me my reading comprehension is bad, haha. 

Ok, this guy and his scout friend (Scouty McScoutster) know more than a former All Pro CB. Welp, I've heard it all now.

 

 

"Some might mistake this for poor route running" does not translate to, "he's a good/great route runner." It just means Sherman doesn't view the way he runs routes as poor. 

And Sherman saying that Fitzgerald is a do-it-all guy like Julio Jones doesn't make it true. It doesn't suddenly make his 4.6 40 into a 4.4, or his horrid rate of explosive plays into a good or great rate. The numbers say he's wrong. 

 

Just now, ET80 said:

He doesn't have to because he already stated they can do it all.

And he already explained what he meant by, "do it all." He was talking about speed, hands, and leaping ability. He never said anything about route running (because that wasn't what he meant).

[SmittyBacall]

1 hour ago, NFLExpert49 said:

Have you ever heard the term, "coach speak?"

Find me a single example of Bill Belichick saying something negative about the abilities of a player on another team. 

Yes I know the difference between “coach speak” and a coach just giving a description of an opposing player. 

So the whole concept of him emphasizing Green’s quickness as special trait serves what ulterior purpose exactly?

Why would he just make that up out of the blue?

[ET80]

10 minutes ago, NFLExpert49 said:

"Some might mistake this for poor route running" does not translate to, "he's a good/great route runner." It just means Sherman doesn't view the way he runs routes as poor. 

So, this goes back to my original point I made when quoting this article, about two camps in this argument:

1. You and your "scout friend" who clearly isn't good at what he does, saying his route running isn't good.

2. The rest of us, including an All Pro CB in football, who view his route running as anything but poor.

You're in the minority, and you're trying to disagree with a SME on the topic in Sherman. It would be the equivalent of me disagreeing with Stephen Hawking on his black hole theory because I know a dude who once took a tour of NASA.

You're sunk, bud. Just admit it so we can go on with our Sunday.

10 minutes ago, NFLExpert49 said:

he already explained what he meant by, "do it all." He was talking about speed, hands, and leaping ability. He never said anything about route running (because that wasn't what he meant).

So, "doing it all" now consists of three actions? Or perhaps he focused on brevity because he wasn't writing a novel on the subject?

You tell me, bud.

[ET80]

9 minutes ago, NFLExpert49 said:

The numbers say he's wrong. 

I will trust on field experience over numbers pulled from Pro Football Reference, tks.

[NFLExpert49]

3 minutes ago, SmittyBacall said:

Yes I know the difference between “coach speak” and a coach just giving a description of an opposing player. 

So the whole concept of him emphasizing Green’s quickness as special trait serves what ulterior purpose exactly?

Why would he just make that up out of the blue?

Because he was just rattling off a bunch of qualities a receiver could have off the top of his head so the reporters leave him alone. If he had said something like, "he's a big guy who uses his body to shield defenders from the ball, and he's good at the subtle push-off, but he's not really quick out of his breaks. He can struggle against press coverage," he's potentially tipping off his plan for defending him. 

[NFLExpert49]

4 minutes ago, ET80 said:

So, this goes back to my original point I made when quoting this article, about two camps in this argument:

1. You and your "scout friend" who clearly isn't good at what he does, saying his route running isn't good.

2. The rest of us, including an All Pro CB in football, who view his route running as anything but poor.

You're in the minority, and you're trying to disagree with a SME on the topic in Sherman. It would be the equivalent of me disagreeing with Stephen Hawking on his black hole theory because I know a dude who once took a tour of NASA.

You're sunk, bud. Just admit it so we can go on with our Sunday.

So, "doing it all" now consists of three actions? Or perhaps he focused on brevity because he wasn't writing a novel on the subject?

You tell me, bud.

No scouts think Fitzgerald is quick out of his breaks. 

Sherman didn't say his route running is, "anything but poor." He just said he doesn't view it as poor. You're turning that into, "Sherman said he's a good/great route runner!" 

He could have said, "some may mistake that for less-than-ideal route running." He could have said, "some may mistakenly think that's not great route running." But the word that came to mind when he was explaining this was, "poor."

I don't even think Fitzgerald is necessarily a "poor" route runner. I don't really think any NFL receivers are, because truly poor route running is the kind of stuff where you would be cut.

Perhaps when he said, "do it all," he was just speaking in a general terms, and not thinking about every component of playing wide receiver. I mean, he already proved he wasn't giving it too much thought because he ignored the fact that Fitzgerald objectively lacks explosiveness as a runner. That's not even debatable. All the metrics show that. 

If Sherman had said, "Jarvis Landry is faster and more explosive than DeSean Jackson," would it suddenly become true?

Let me tell you a little related story. A friend of mine was diagnosed with metastatic testicular cancer last year. He did surgery, chemo, etc. After the treatments, while there were still numerous lesions in his lungs, the doctors decided to take the approach of short-term monitoring, thinking they were just necrotic tissue from the treatment, as opposed to any malignant lesions being left. 

A couple months later, the scans showed one of the lesions had grown. They weren't sure whether the lesion was some cancer that had been left over or a slow-growing tumor called "teratoma." My friend flew out to the most famous testicular cancer doctor in the world (the guy who treated Lance Armstrong and developed the chemotherapy protocol that led to such a high cure rate). The doctor walked in and told him, in no uncertain terms, that what they were looking at in the scans was a teratoma.

My friend didn't buy it. My friend had done some research on the topic and saw that the growth rate didn't match up. He also knew that the doctor was basing this diagnosis on his tumor markers being within the normal range, but he had had low tumor markers to begin with.

My friend brought this stuff up to the doctor, but the doctor insisted, at one point even agitatedly telling him, "IT'S NOT GOING TO BE CANCER."

So he came home and did the surgery to have it removed.

Cancer.

Here's a guy who had seen thousands upon thousands of cases, and in this particular instance, he wasn't any better at diagnosing what was going on from the information than my friend.

Richard Sherman may think he was facing a receiver who can do it all, but he wasn't. Nothing outweighs the NFL receiver pathology reports. 

[Superman(DH23)]

20 minutes ago, NFLExpert49 said:

Oh man. You are so clueless it's unbelievable.

NFL receivers spend hours nearly every single day practicing routes. Most of the time players spend at practice is with their position coaches. 

Who said anything about peewee? What are you even babbling about? 

But I mean, I'm talking to the guy who said that the difference between Tom Waddle and Randy Moss is that Waddle had nowhere near the technique of Moss, since everybody in the NFL is a great athlete and it's all about technique, so why should I be surprised? 

THAT is a strawman.  I actually said almost the exact opposite implying that it was Waddle's technique that allowed him to play in the nfl as long as he did. 

And why would i mention peewee thru college offenses?  What would be the purpose?  Whats the commonality?

[ET80]

7 minutes ago, NFLExpert49 said:

No scouts think Fitzgerald is quick out of his breaks. 

You have yet to substantiate this with anything other than "I know a guy." I hope you understand the leap of faith required to take this at absolute face value on an Internet message board. 

I know a scout too - he says Fitzgerald is quick out of his breaks. So, we're at an impasse. 

10 minutes ago, NFLExpert49 said:

Sherman didn't say his route running is, "anything but poor." He just said he doesn't view it as poor. You're turning that into, "Sherman said he's a good/great route runner!" 

Why bring it up then? He's obviously trying to paint a picture for others - and he does, very vividly at that. He then goes into the timing of a play within the constructs of coverage, explaining the innate knowledge needed to pull that off, which shows a display of awareness mid route (which I'd argue is a more important trait to have in a pre-snap adjustment/timing route NFL that we see, but that's another argument entirely). 

 

14 minutes ago, NFLExpert49 said:

He could have said, "some may mistake that for less-than-ideal route running." He could have said, "some may mistakenly think that's not great route running." But the word that came to mind when he was explaining this was, "poor"

Going back to brevity. He's painting a specific picture, not the Sistine chapel.

15 minutes ago, NFLExpert49 said:

Richard Sherman may think he was facing a receiver who can do it all, but he wasn't. Nothing outweighs the NFL receiver pathology reports.

Consider the familiarity of the two. Over the past six years, these two gave played 12 times (11, given Sherman was hurt last season).

Sure if he's talking about Landry or Jackson he might not be a SME - but this is a familiar for for Sherman. His word carries a significant amount of weight.

15 minutes ago, NFLExpert49 said:

Nothing outweighs the NFL receiver pathology reports

...you and your unnamed sources don't have it either. Citing baseline stats you can pull up from Google isn't the Rosetta Stone you're making it out to be, especially when you're talking about instances in the 10s (think I went over this before).

Cool story about your friend, BTW. Really happy for him, cancer sucks.

[SmittyBacall]

1 hour ago, NFLExpert49 said:

Because he was just rattling off a bunch of qualities a receiver could have off the top of his head so the reporters leave him alone. If he had said something like, "he's a big guy who uses his body to shield defenders from the ball, and he's good at the subtle push-off, but he's not really quick out of his breaks. He can struggle against press coverage," he's potentially tipping off his plan for defending him. 

Oh give me a break. That’s horse crap that I don’t think you even believe. 

So he just carelessly pulled out generic WR descriptions so the media would leave him alone? Do you read what you post before you post it? That’s lunacy.

As for the tipping off his gameplan, that’s simply not how the NFL works. The truth is the jury isn’t out on how to defend against Green, or similar receivers. The Bengals know his weaknesses just like every team and defensive coordinator around the league. It’s no secret how to defend Green, or any receiver by that matter. To act like Belichek somehow knows the secret to defending him and doesn’t want to tip his hand doesn’t make any sense. Teams know what puts their opponents in a disadvantage and implement it, yet the player succeeds anyway.  It’s what makes all-pro players all-pros. It’s why guys like Green still consistently beat double-coverage on Sundays.

And I’ll admit, putting your hands on Green is a good way to slow him down. To act like Belichek is secretly the only one who knows this uber-basic concept is plain stupid.

[NFLExpert49]

2 hours ago, Superman(DH23) said:

THAT is a strawman.  I actually said almost the exact opposite implying that it was Waddle's technique that allowed him to play in the nfl as long as he did. 

And why would i mention peewee thru college offenses?  What would be the purpose?  Whats the commonality?

No. This is what you said: "Shirley you cant be serious?  The age old adage in the nfl is everyone is fast.  Everyone is a great athlete what separates players in the nfl is technique.  There is a reason that "unathletic" guys like Tom Waddle were able to consistently get open."

According to you, everyone is a great athlete but what separates players in the NFL is technique. That means that what separates Randy Moss from Tom Waddle is technique, not athleticism, since everyone is a great athlete, and what separates them is technique. 

Again, who said anything about peewee until you did? I mentioned college and the NFL. The guys who play wide receiver nearly always played it in college, and received quite a bit of coaching there. Once they got to the NFL, they received tons of professional coaching. Learning technique is not about talent, it's about work. NFL players either put in the work or they're gone.