Xs&Os - Explanation time on Geno

[LeTigre]

Originally Posted by Fan_in_Kettering

It doesn't matter what the position says on the roster for a defensive lineman. It only matters where they line up and in what technique -- and in the 4-3 there are many different technique permutations. Watch the Bengals line up on defense and you'll see a variety of formations. In fact, watch the opposing quarterback, because if you see him come up to the line, call a zillion audibles, then signal for a time out in sheer frustration, it is often because he saw a defensive formation designed to do something the offense he has on the field cannot exploit.

spot on - this is something that marvin has also backed up many,many times in terms of his philosophy.

[CINCYPRODUCT]

Originally Posted by BengalzHacker

That's hindsight again, Mr. "I crammed 4 years of college into 12", not a proof that Mayock was wrong WHEN he made his statement.

He is saying the system is flawed and I agree.

[BengalzHacker]

Originally Posted by CINCYPRODUCT

He is saying the system is flawed and I agree.

In what way? I won't defend it as perfect, but how is the sysyem flawed? And how do those flaws relate to this discussion on Burfict and Mayock's comments.

[CINCYPRODUCT]

Originally Posted by BengalzHacker

In what way? I won't defend it as perfect, but how is the sysyem flawed? And how do those flaws relate to this discussion on Burfict and Mayock's comments.

It's flawed to this point-
If you assess some ones skills according to what ever guide line you have and they bust when according to your guide lines that say they shouldn't. Or a guy has success when your guide lines say he shouldn't. This is no different than money ball in baseball. The game the athletes have changed. There are parameters used that do not account for on field performance. Only what a person dictates will translates to on field performance.

[berserkerone88]

Originally Posted by CINCYPRODUCT

It's flawed to this point-
If you assess some ones skills according to what ever guide line you have and they bust when according to your guide lines that say they shouldn't. Or a guy has success when your guide lines say he shouldn't. This is no different than money ball in baseball. The game the athletes have changed. There are parameters used that do not account for on field performance. Only what a person dictates will translates to on field performance.

And leading up to the draft, Burfict dictated he was unmotivated, lazy, out of shape and a liability on the field.

[CINCYPRODUCT]

Originally Posted by berserkerone88

And leading up to the draft, Burfict dictated he was unmotivated, lazy, out of shape and a liability on the field.

Which is not the point but proof that it is flawed. It does not matter the grading, the second the opposite happens you are wrong. For some reason no one puts ppls feet to the fire like baseball has. To me it's clear. At first I thought the same as you mayock was right. But the second he said he shouldn't be in the NFL based on the parameters he and others use, he opened himself to criticism for being wrong.

[berserkerone88]

Originally Posted by CINCYPRODUCT

Which is not the point but proof that it is flawed. It does not matter the grading, the second the opposite happens you are wrong. For some reason no one puts ppls feet to the fire like baseball has. To me it's clear. At first I thought the same as you mayock was right. But the second he said he shouldn't be in the NFL based on the parameters he and others use, he opened himself to criticism for being wrong.

That proves the success of it. Mayock thought it. So did 32 NFL teams.
He wasn't wrong. Burfict wasn't an NFL caliber player his last year at ASU.
He made it worse at the combine. He made it even worse at his pro-day.
Marvin took a shot. You can't preemptively decide whether going undrafted and hitting rock bottom will straighten a guy out.

[CINCYPRODUCT]

Originally Posted by berserkerone88

That proves the success of it. Mayock thought it. So did 32 NFL teams.
He wasn't wrong. Burfict wasn't an NFL caliber player his last year at ASU.
He made it worse at the combine. He made it even worse at his pro-day.
Marvin took a shot. You can't preemptively decide whether going undrafted and hitting rock bottom will straighten a guy out.

All o that I agree with. But when all of those factors aren't right concerning how a player performs then what? The point is there is no true way to determine nfl talent and there are so many cases out there. Burfict isn't even the tip if the iceberg. Ill show you a different angle how should anyone drafted after a first rounder at the same position out perform them. Their back ground was good no trouble off the field but are getting out performed by an undrafted or later round guy. The system is flawed.

[berserkerone88]

Originally Posted by CINCYPRODUCT

All o that I agree with. But when all of those factors aren't right concerning how a player performs then what? The point is there is no true way to determine nfl talent and there are so many cases out there. Burfict isn't even the tip if the iceberg. Ill show you a different angle how should anyone drafted after a first rounder at the same position out perform them. Their back ground was good no trouble off the field but are getting out performed by an undrafted or later round guy. The system is flawed.

How?
You haven't showed how the system is flawed other than we can't see into the future.

[McC]

Originally Posted by berserkerone88

Yes.
A while back (mid-season) a poster (Xs&Os) stated Geno was a liability on our defense.
He still seems to think this.

I am giving him his chance to state his case again.

If somebody wants to be the only guy in America ragging on Geno, why do you care so much? Seems to me if what he said was true, one other person might have picked up on it. Some people just can't bear the thought of perfection.

People criticized DaVinci too.

[CINCYPRODUCT]

Originally Posted by berserkerone88

How?
You haven't showed how the system is flawed other than we can't see into the future.

Well I guess to me a guy drafted in the 6th round out shines a guy who according to experts is the best and should go in round 1 is proof enough for me.

You do realize other sports have moved past what a so called expert Saids to other methods I truly believe nfl hast found the true ingredient for minimal bad picks but it will happen because kids are getting faster and stronger at all positions.

[berserkerone88]

Originally Posted by CINCYPRODUCT

Well I guess to me a guy drafted in the 6th round out shines a guy who according to experts is the best and should go in round 1 is proof enough for me.

But again, that is pure hindsight.
It can't be factored into this equation.

Being drafted late fuels a guy. It gives him different motivation than before. Who is to say Brady becomes Brady if he is drafted in the first by the Browns

[CINCYPRODUCT]

Originally Posted by berserkerone88

How?
You haven't showed how the system is flawed other than we can't see into the future.

Another thing lol it's all about the future. They don't draft for the now they draft for the future of the team so to use a process that doesn't maximize that because its the way it's always been done isn't going to cut it.

[CINCYPRODUCT]

Originally Posted by berserkerone88

But again, that is pure hindsight.
It can't be factored into this equation.

Being drafted late fuels a guy. It gives him different motivation than before. Who is to say Brady becomes Brady if he is drafted in the first by the Browns

Again I agree but instead of looking at the result why not question the process? I mean come on look at Geno he is destroying Suh. You think the lions would have picked him if the experts said the best DT in that draft is Geno Atkins?

[berserkerone88]

Originally Posted by CINCYPRODUCT

Another thing lol it's all about the future. They don't draft for the future of the team so to use a process that doesn't maximize that because its the way it's always been done isn't going to cut it.

But that's just it. You talk like people can read the damn future or something.
Vontaze Burfict did absolutely NOTHING his last few years at ASU and the pre-draft process to make ANYONE believe he would be anything in the NFL.

[berserkerone88]

Originally Posted by CINCYPRODUCT

Again I agree but instead of looking at the result why not question the process? I mean come on look at Geno he is destroying sue. You think the lions would have picked him if the experts said the best DT in that draft is Geno Atkins?

Yes they would have. But Geno had a reputation at UGA of taking plays off and he was a bit undersized.
It wasn't until he got to the NFL that he learned to truly utilize his natural advantage of leverage and play harder every down.

[CINCYPRODUCT]

Originally Posted by berserkerone88

But that's just it. You talk like people can read the damn future or something.
Vontaze Burfict did absolutely NOTHING his last few years at ASU and the pre-draft process to make ANYONE believe he would be anything in the NFL.

Which I agree with and experts said he would not do well in the nfl do you not see that flaw?

[berserkerone88]

Originally Posted by CINCYPRODUCT

Which I agree with and experts said he would not do well in the nfl do you not see that flaw?

THAT IS NOT A FLAW.
A flaw is missing something you can see or correct.
You cannot correct being unable to see the future.

You cannot predict how dropping a guy from first round to UDFA will effect him.
He can buck up and play like Burfict or he can pack it in and go home.

[CINCYPRODUCT]

Originally Posted by berserkerone88

Yes they would have. But Geno had a reputation at UGA of taking plays off and he was a bit undersized.
It wasn't until he got to the NFL that he learned to truly utilize his natural advantage of leverage and play harder every down.

You do know there was only one draft report that said he took plays off? His coach explained the way they used him and in turn showed he did not take plays off. But because experts believe if you are this big and look the part they gave Suh the head nod.

[berserkerone88]

Originally Posted by CINCYPRODUCT

You do know there was only one draft report that said he took plays off? His coach explained the way they used him and in turn showed he did not take plays off. But because experts believe if you are this big and look the part they gave Suh the head nod.

Suh earned it by outplaying Atkins in college.
Are you really so determined to believe players don't get better in the NFL?
It is entirely like that if it wasn't for Hayes and Zimmer coaching Atkins up he would be a flop.

[CINCYPRODUCT]

Originally Posted by berserkerone88

THAT IS NOT A FLAW.
A flaw is missing something you can see or correct.
You cannot correct being unable to see the future.

You cannot predict how dropping a guy from first round to UDFA will effect him.
He can buck up and play like Burfict or he can pack it in and go home.

I don't agree with your definition of flaw or the corrective action for it, but the point is your trying to make your franchise relevant for the future why use a process that isn't 100% and has been proven wrong many times. I think a better process is yet to be found.


Noun
A mark, fault, or other imperfection that mars a substance or object.
Verb
(of an imperfection) Mar, weaken, or invalidate (something): "the computer game was flawed by poor programming".

[CINCYPRODUCT]

Originally Posted by berserkerone88

Suh earned it by outplaying Atkins in college.
Are you really so determined to believe players don't get better in the NFL?
It is entirely like that if it wasn't for Hayes and Zimmer coaching Atkins up he would be a flop.

Your missing the point and eluding to things I did not say. I'm merely pointing at the process used to determine what players are nflaterial and aren't.

[berserkerone88]

Originally Posted by CINCYPRODUCT

I don't agree with your definition of flaw or the corrective action for it, but the point is your trying to make your franchise relevant for the future why use a process that isn't 100% and has been proven wrong many times. I think a better process is yet to be found.


Noun
A mark, fault, or other imperfection that mars a substance or object.
Verb
(of an imperfection) Mar, weaken, or invalidate (something): "the computer game was flawed by poor programming".

the only process that could improve this is a psychic who can see the future.
things will get more accurate as more tape is more readily available and teams expand and higher more scouts.

But there is no flaw in the system.
Your examples of flaws hinged entirely upon things that cannot be measured or calculated without using a severe case of hindsight.

[CINCYPRODUCT]

Originally Posted by berserkerone88

the only process that could improve this is a psychic who can see the future.
things will get more accurate as more tape is more readily available and teams expand and higher more scouts.

But there is no flaw in the system.
Your examples of flaws hinged entirely upon things that cannot be measured or calculated without using a severe case of hindsight.

Lol that's my point berserk the things that can't be measured by the current system hence why I call it flawed.

[berserkerone88]

Originally Posted by CINCYPRODUCT

Lol that'sy point berserk the things that can't be measured by the current system hence why I call it flawed.

but that's not a flaw.
that is part of the system. no one said Geno wasn't talented just that it would take a lot of work to get him to where he needs.
Burfict showed talent very early in his ASU career but he showed such a disregard for football and the draft process no one was sure enough if he would even care enough again to play.