NFL Combine Thread

Advertisement
Scrambling ability does not mean they aren't a pocket passer and doesn't make them a "dual threat". The elite guys are "pocket passers" who can get out the pocket if necessary.
So, scrambling ability doesn't make a quarterback "dual threat"? What does?
Every single pro quarterback is a pocket passer who can get out of the pocket if necessary besides a few total statues who are still playing. Nobody is out there running the triple option.
 
So, scrambling ability doesn't make a quarterback "dual threat"? What does?
Every single pro quarterback is a pocket passer who can get out of the pocket if necessary besides a few total statues who are still playing. Nobody is out there running the triple option.
I don't think anybody would argue that, but if you look at a recruiting website and kids are listed as dual threat or pocket passer even though the pocket passer can still "scramble" they are still "pocket passers" like Trevor Lawrence, and I am just stating that those guys are the ones winning super bowls as opposed to "dual threat" guys who don't just scramble but have designed run plays.
 
I don't think anybody would argue that, but if you look at a recruiting website and kids are listed as dual threat or pocket passer even though the pocket passer can still "scramble" they are still "pocket passers" like Trevor Lawrence, and I am just stating that those guys are the ones winning super bowls as opposed to "dual threat" guys who don't just scramble but have designed run plays.
Well, yes. Passing ability is far more important as a pro QB. A lot of guys playing QB in college are just athletes with strong arms. Still the trend is going more towards guys who can run a little bit even if they're not designed running plays. When I think "pocket passer" I think of guys like Brady, the Manning brothers, Dan Marino, Phillip Rivers, etc. Those guys were/are all great but the game is moving away from those types.
 
Advertisement
Kyler Murray dominates this 538 evaluation of college quarterbacks based on CPOE or Completion Percentage Over Expected. It measures depth of target in relation to completion percentage. Russell Wilson had the top number on the list given the backfitted data since 2009.

Looks like a work in progress but I can tell it is legitimate and high caliber based on the names 2, 3 and 4 behind Wilson. They are Johnny Manziel, Jameis Winston and Kellen Moore. A less confident and desperate analyst would have come up with some ridiculous means to exclude those guys, once his model spit out those names. I have seen that done countless times, whether it's sports or wagering or politics, etc. Since 538 was rugged enough to post the data minus adjustment, I'm sure this formula will be heard from again and will prove to dominate subjectivity, which is on the way out anyway. Or let's say relegated.

Will Grier has a surprisingly high number. However, he is overaged and 538 has already done a separate study on the sucker aspect of drafting overaged prospects particularly at quarterback. They obviously have not blended the two. The formula has a much lower -- although decent -- appraisal of Haskins. It basically rejects Daniel Jones and especially Drew Lock, who barely registers at all. Tyree Jackson is also about as low as it can get.

I'll look forward to further adaptations of this. Once something like this surfaces others copy and attempt to modify it.

The fact that Manziel, Jameis, and Kellen Moore are 2, 3, and 4 on that list really gives me pause in thinking it portends accurately.

I strongly disagree (as do NFL GMs) about its forecast for Drew Lock. While I am not a fan of Daniel Jones and think he's a poor man's Joe Flacco, I like Drew Lock and would not be upset if he fell to Miami #13.
 
You and Scarlett..lol

I'm just using information that's always been out there - same as @brock posting Homers results

https://www.sbnation.com/college-fo...881543/2014-sparq-combine-results-the-opening

81353


I think Scarlett actually ran a 4.38 though.

For whatever reason draft sites have Scarlett as a high 4.5 guy and had Walton as a 4.4 guy. Most have Homer as just an "average" athlete.

It's weird.....I don't get it.....but sometimes reputation is much more important than actual numbers.
 
Looks like Willis has "shrunk" right into the height range of our most dominant DTs.

Thought he was a bit taller than that, but I'd be surprised if he isn't drafted in the 1st round.

He should be a good one in the pros.

 
Advertisement
Looks like Willis has "shrunk" right into the height range of our most dominant DTs.

Thought he was a bit taller than that, but I'd be surprised if he isn't drafted in the 1st round.

He should be a good one in the pros.
well according to most/all mocks hes not going till 3rd. Would like to see some of our guys going in the first 2 rounds
 
I'm just using information that's always been out there - same as @brock posting Homers results

https://www.sbnation.com/college-fo...881543/2014-sparq-combine-results-the-opening

View attachment 81353

I think Scarlett actually ran a 4.38 though.

For whatever reason draft sites have Scarlett as a high 4.5 guy and had Walton as a 4.4 guy. Most have Homer as just an "average" athlete.

It's weird.....I don't get it.....but sometimes reputation is much more important than actual numbers.
Yeah homer should kill it at the combine imo
 
well according to most/all mocks hes not going till 3rd. Would like to see some of our guys going in the first 2 rounds
No matter when he goes, he's got a 1st round mindset right now that I hope he never loses. I pray his story continues to get better and better.
 
It'd be a steal if someone could get him in the 3rd, in my opinion.

He looked and played like a 1st round DT to me.

We'll find out soon enough.

well according to most/all mocks hes not going till 3rd. Would like to see some of our guys going in the first 2 rounds
 
Back
Top