2018 NFL Combine (measurements in OP)

[Jeezla]

How was Joseph Noteboom at the Senior Bowl? 

I like that he put up 27 reps with basically 34 1/2" arms, and 6'5" 310 is solid size, but I don't remember him at all.

[VanS]

2 hours ago, MD4L said:

How was Saquan Barkley not a five star recruit?

The recruiting services are mostly pay for play.  You gotta go to their camps and pay to get rated high.  Its possible he didn't camp.  Another possibility is guys develop at different times.  Most of the guys who are 5-star recruits at 17 years old just happened to have developed earlier than their peers and plateau once they hit college.  While others like Saquon just keep getting better and better and eventually surpass all those guys that were considered better at a younger age.

The most likely reason, however, is those doing the ratings are simply not good at their jobs.  Sorta like how NFL talent evaluators aren't very good at their jobs either since we countless 1st round busts every year and late round steals.

[jrry32]

3 minutes ago, VanS said:

The recruiting services are mostly pay for play.  You gotta go to their camps and pay to get rated high.  Its possible he didn't camp.  Another possibility is guys develop at different times.  Most of the guys who are 5-star recruits at 17 years old just happened to have developed earlier than their peers and plateau once they hit college.  While others like Saquon just keep getting better and better and eventually surpass all those guys that were considered better at a younger age.

The most likely reason, however, is those doing the ratings are simply not good at their jobs.  Sorta like how NFL talent evaluators aren't very good at their jobs either since we countless 1st round busts every year and late round steals.

That's absolutely terrible logic. The success rate for first round picks is significantly higher than it is for day three picks. This is like claiming that Steph Curry is bad at his job because he doesn't hit 100% of the shots he takes.

[Broncofan]

2 hours ago, MD4L said:

How was Saquan Barkley not a five star recruit?

 

14 minutes ago, VanS said:

The recruiting services are mostly pay for play.  You gotta go to their camps and pay to get rated high.  Its possible he didn't camp.  Another possibility is guys develop at different times.  Most of the guys who are 5-star recruits at 17 years old just happened to have developed earlier than their peers and plateau once they hit college.  While others like Saquon just keep getting better and better and eventually surpass all those guys that were considered better at a younger age.

The most likely reason, however, is those doing the ratings are simply not good at their jobs.  Sorta like how NFL talent evaluators aren't very good at their jobs either since we countless 1st round busts every year and late round steals.

 

7 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

That's absolutely terrible logic. The success rate for first round picks is significantly higher than it is for day three picks. This is like claiming that Steph Curry is bad at his job because he doesn't hit 100% of the shots he takes.

Plus there are very simple explanations for missing HS evaluations going into college: 

1.   First and foremost, physical growth and development of 18 year olds through age 19-21 is extremely variable.   It’s not like there’s a set pattern. 

2.   The HS background level of competition is even more varied than the college level.   

3.  The same goes for coaching.  

4.   As unpredictable as physical growth and development are concerned it’s even harder to project how dedicated the kids will be in both physical training and developing their skills beyond just raw talent, to give the extra bump in development / skills to go with elite physical talent.   You can probably spot warning signs of problem cases but separating the physically elite AND internally driven player adds more unpredictability.  

There are others but those 4 factors alone it’s not that surprising to see more variation and missed stars identified at the HS level going into college.  

[VanS]

25 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

That's absolutely terrible logic. The success rate for first round picks is significantly higher than it is for day three picks. This is like claiming that Steph Curry is bad at his job because he doesn't hit 100% of the shots he takes.

Your Steph Curry example is wrong because we can compare Steph to others in his field and determine he's better than everyone else at his job and thus it makes his less than 100% success rate impressive. 

There's nothing to suggest that NFL talent evaluators are any better at identifying talent than average joes who just watch college football on TV.  I will direct you to the most noteworthy position.  Quarterback.  Last year the NFL talent evaluators were pretty much in agreement that Mitch Trubisky was a better QB prospect than Deshaun Watson.  While most of the public (because they watched Deshaun Watson dominate college football) thought Deshaun Watson was clearly the top QB prospect in the draft and better than Mitch Trubisky.  One season in, I would say Joe Public looks better than all those "talent evaluators". 

Now I know you're gonna say that is just one example.  And its only been one season.  But I'm sure if we had a re-draft today of the 2017 NFL Draft, Deshaun Watson would be drafted ahead of Mitch Trubisky (assuming the knee checks out).  Thus, in a way, the experts were wrong on this and the public was right.  You would think that given their alleged expertise, and the importance of the QB position, that the experts would have done better than the public.

[jrry32]

Just now, VanS said:

Your Steph Curry example is wrong because we can compare Steph to others in his field and determine he's better than everyone else at his job and thus it makes his less than 100% success rate impressive. 

Yet, on a game-by-game basis, players outscore and outshoot Steph Curry. Your opinion is laughable.

Quote

There's nothing to suggest that NFL talent evaluators are any better at identifying talent than average joes who just watch college football on TV.  I will direct you to the most noteworthy position.  Quarterback.  Last year the NFL talent evaluators were pretty much in agreement that Mitch Trubisky was a better QB prospect than Deshaun Watson.  While most of the public (because they watched Deshaun Watson dominate college football) thought Deshaun Watson was clearly the top QB prospect in the draft and better than Mitch Trubisky.  One season in, I would say Joe Public looks better than all those "talent evaluators". 

And then there's that one guy who thought that Josh Dobbs is an elite and transcendent talent.

I'm sure "most of the public" also thought Johnny Manziel would be a great pro QB because of his college dominance. Lou Williams having a better game than Steph Curry doesn't make him a better basketball player. 

Quote

Now I know you're gonna say that is just one example.  And its only been one season.  But I'm sure if we had a re-draft today of the 2017 NFL Draft, Deshaun Watson would be drafted ahead of Mitch Trubisky (assuming the knee checks out).  Thus, in a way, the experts were wrong on this and the public was right.  You would think that given their alleged expertise, and the importance of the QB position, that the experts would have done better than the public.

See above for how laughable this logic is. I certainly don't think NFL evaluators are infallible. There are some who definitely suck at their jobs. But they're certainly more qualified than the general public. Your argument here is utter nonsense. It's like arguing that because you guessed correctly that your friend broke his arm, you're qualified to be a doctor.

[VanS]

22 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

Plus there are very simple explanations for missing HS evaluations going into college: 

1.   First and foremost, physical growth and development of 18 year olds through age 19-21 is extremely variable.   It’s not like there’s a set pattern. 

2.   The HS background level of competition is even more varied than the college level.   

3.  The same goes for coaching.  

4.   As unpredictable as physical growth and development are concerned it’s even harder to project how dedicated the kids will be in both physical training and developing their skills beyond just raw talent, to give the extra bump in development / skills to go with elite physical talent.   You can probably spot warning signs of problem cases but separating the physically elite AND internally driven player adds more unpredictability.  

There are others but those 4 factors alone it’s not that surprising to see more variation and missed stars identified at the HS level going into college.  

The recruiting websites are also pretty corrupt.  You cannot discount that from the calculus.  The kids they rate highly typically go to their camps.  Rivals in particular is pretty infamous for this.  And they make those kids pay to go to the camps and to get rated.  Most kids do this because they want the exposure and because college programs actually do use these recruiting websites as tools to identify prospects who they might not have been aware of.

Also most of the highly rated kids get rated high more for what they do at these camps (which isn't real football) than they doing actually playing the game on Fridays in pads.  And just as the combine doesn't always tell you who can play and who can't based on tests.  Same with these camps.  Which do give preference to athletic freaks.  That plays into the calculus as well for why the recruiting services are so unreliable.

[VanS]

1 minute ago, jrry32 said:

Yet, on a game-by-game basis, players outscore and outshoot Steph Curry. Your opinion is laughable.

And then there's that one guy who thought that Josh Dobbs is an elite and transcendent talent.

I'm sure "most of the public" also thought Johnny Manziel would be a great pro QB because of his college dominance. Lou Williams having a better game than Steph Curry doesn't make him a better basketball player. 

See above for how laughable this logic is. I certainly don't think NFL evaluators are infallible. There are some who definitely suck at their jobs. But they're certainly more qualified than the general public. Your argument here is utter nonsense. It's like arguing that because you guessed correctly that your friend broke his arm, you're qualified to be a doctor.

So did the NFL. 

Or did you miss the part where Johnny Manziel was a 1st round pick?  Who along with Blake Bortles was drafted ahead of Derek Carr. 

Being as bad as the public is not a defense if you're trying to argue that these people are more qualified.  I would hope NFL talent evalutors if they really do hold expertise in this field would have a better success rate than the public.   And nothing I've seen suggests that they do. 

 

[jrry32]

Just now, VanS said:

So did the NFL. 

Or did you miss the part where Johnny Manziel was a 1st round pick?  Who along with Blake Bortles was drafted ahead of Derek Carr. 

Being as bad as the public is not a defense if you're trying to argue that these people are more qualified.  I would hope NFL talent evalutors if they really do hold expertise in this field would have a better success rate than the public.   And nothing I've seen suggests that they do. 

That's because the public has no success rate. They don't make picks. And the public's opinions are guided by what the NFL experts are doing.

No, the NFL didn't. The Browns did. I didn't miss the part where Johnny Manziel was a late-first round pick.

Your argument is nonsense. If NFL talent evaluators are so bad at their job, the success rate by round would reflect that. It doesn't.

[Soko]

 

32 minutes ago, VanS said:

There's nothing to suggest that NFL talent evaluators are any better at identifying talent than average joes who just watch college football on TV.  

You should tell this to the owners. All this money that they’re paying the scouts and general managers, they could save a ton by just posting a twitter poll from their team’s social media page. 

[VanS]

11 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

 

You should tell this to the owners. All this money that they’re paying the scouts and general managers, they could save a ton by just posting a twitter poll from their team’s social media page. 

The whole thing is a good ole boy network anyways.  They know these guys aren't any better than random joes.  Its why there's so much nepotism in the NFL.

[VanS]

37 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

That's because the public has no success rate. They don't make picks. And the public's opinions are guided by what the NFL experts are doing.

No, the NFL didn't. The Browns did. I didn't miss the part where Johnny Manziel was a late-first round pick.

Your argument is nonsense. If NFL talent evaluators are so bad at their job, the success rate by round would reflect that. It doesn't.

The Browns aren't part of the NFL?   News to me.

[jrry32]

Just now, VanS said:

The Browns aren't part of the NFL?   News to me.

Zaza Pachulia is on the Warriors, but nobody claims that the Warriors can't shoot threes because Zaza can't.

[Scoundrel]

Yay we are going to derail another thread...

[IDOG_det]

5 hours ago, MSURacerDT55 said:

Long arms, believe me, he mauls guys on film.

14 reps is normally concerning but with tape like his it's not a big deal. His strength comes with rotational power amd the torque he generates. The bench press doesn't measure that.