- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Todd McShay's New Mock Draft Has The Saints Taking.....
Posted on 4/11/14 at 1:04 am to Isaid
Posted on 4/11/14 at 1:04 am to Isaid
quote:And that's exactly my point. Without the talent, size doesn't mean shite.
Soo Keith McGill or Verrett??
I say Verrett all day
Not that McGill is not talented, but is a good bit less talented than Verrett.
1
Posted on 4/11/14 at 1:05 am to bonethug0108
your welcome
Posted on 4/11/14 at 1:06 am to Isaid
quote:Thanks.
your welcome
Posted on 4/11/14 at 1:09 am to Isaid
do you think Brandin cooks has a more talent than Kelvin Benjamin?
i do. And it's not even that close. Yet there are a lot of teams that would take Benjamin before Cooks because he is 6'5".
y'all are fricking dumb.
if Verrett was 6'1" he'd go in the top 10.
i do. And it's not even that close. Yet there are a lot of teams that would take Benjamin before Cooks because he is 6'5".
y'all are fricking dumb.
if Verrett was 6'1" he'd go in the top 10.
Posted on 4/11/14 at 1:13 am to Lester Earl
quote:I thought we always kept our discussions civil.
y'all are fricking dumb.
Yes SOME teams value size over talent more than others, but those teams are usually like the raiders and not like the patriots.
The smarter teams will take Cooks over Benjamin 99/100.
And yeah if you add 4 fricking inches to a really talented guy of course teams would look at him more, but the key word there is TALENTED.
Size without talent means nothing. Talent matters FAR more.
Edit:
And I already provided you a very good example to this last time in Tavon Austin. Teams thought his talent far outweighed his size "limitations".
Funny that a 5'8" WR being the first one taken.
This post was edited on 4/11/14 at 1:16 am
Posted on 4/11/14 at 1:17 am to Lester Earl
We re not disagreeing with that... I said in a later post that if he was taller he would go higher in the draft. We re just saying it doesn't mean everything it just a positive, and only in extreme cases should it warrant a drop in draft stock.
Also some teams think like you and some teams think likes us, so your right about the Benjamin and Cooks thing, but also wrong.
Also some teams think like you and some teams think likes us, so your right about the Benjamin and Cooks thing, but also wrong.
Posted on 4/11/14 at 1:19 am to bonethug0108
quote:
Size without talent means nothing. Talent matters FAR more.
you and your broad paint brush
Never said height is more important than talent. All these guys are talented.
When you are talking comparative players, ie 1st/2nd round picks, height is an equalizer. Not sure how you don't understand that.
Or how despite being talented, like an NFL players, 2 or 3 inches can relegate you to being a backup rather than a starter. Or a role player rather than a stater.
Are most 3rd down running backs talented? Sure. But they aren't built to be anything more.
Posted on 4/11/14 at 1:22 am to Lester Earl
quote:I said that. Not sure how you haven't seen that.
When you are talking comparative players, ie 1st/2nd round picks, height is an equalizer
And I think you meant differentiator, not equalizer.
Posted on 4/11/14 at 1:23 am to bonethug0108
quote:
Edit:
And I already provided you a very good example to this last time in Tavon Austin. Teams thought his talent far outweighed his size "limitations".
Funny that a 5'8" WR being the first one taken.
yea buddy. Go back 30 years in the draft and tell me how many sub 5'10" WR's were taken in the top 10. Seriously, go do it. And report back.
There are exceptions to every rule. It doesn't make it the standard.
The best WR's in NFL history were all 6'0" plus.
Posted on 4/11/14 at 1:26 am to Lester Earl
quote:Were they all 6'4"+?
The best WR's in NFL history were all 6'0" plus
I mean if size matters that much and all.
Posted on 4/11/14 at 1:29 am to bonethug0108
quote:
Were they all 6'4"+?
I mean if size matters that much and all.
nope. But 6'0" isn't 5'8" or even 5'9". Despite only being a few inches. your dumbass tavon austin or steve smith comparison
Posted on 4/11/14 at 1:31 am to bonethug0108
quote:
And I think you meant differentiator, not equalizer.
equalizer, in a sense that a less talented taller guy can match up to a more talented smaller player
Posted on 4/11/14 at 1:34 am to Lester Earl
But from everything you're telling me, all the greats have to at least be 6'6" right?
No shite there is a range for these guys. I'm not talking about the extremes. I'm saying a normal sized 5'10" guy that's very talented will be more coveted than a 6'3" guy that is meh(by the smarter teams).
Talent far outweighs size, except in your little extreme cases you keep making.
No shite there is a range for these guys. I'm not talking about the extremes. I'm saying a normal sized 5'10" guy that's very talented will be more coveted than a 6'3" guy that is meh(by the smarter teams).
Talent far outweighs size, except in your little extreme cases you keep making.
This post was edited on 4/11/14 at 1:37 am
Posted on 4/11/14 at 1:35 am to Lester Earl
quote:My mistake then. I read it as if the players were equally talented then size would be the differentiator.
equalizer, in a sense that a less talented taller guy can match up to a more talented smaller player
Posted on 4/11/14 at 6:12 am to Meateye
Wouldn't be upset about that.
Posted on 4/11/14 at 6:59 am to Lester Earl
Lester have you been hurt repeatedly by someone saying that size does matter?
Posted on 4/11/14 at 7:11 am to bonethug0108
All aboard the Lester's shite n' Spin. You bought a ticket, take a ride.
Posted on 4/11/14 at 7:27 am to bonethug0108
quote:
(within reasonable parameters and not your extremes lester)
Then
quote:
But size by itself matters little. You can be 7'0" and have jack shite for talent vs. 5'9" and a ton of talent and I will take the 5'9" guy all day
Posted on 4/11/14 at 7:28 am to Patrick O Rly
Eh, I've been on worse. I used to like spinning in circles as a kid.
Edit:
Using his silly extremes and showing that talent is still more important. How do you not get that?
Edit:
Using his silly extremes and showing that talent is still more important. How do you not get that?
This post was edited on 4/11/14 at 7:33 am
Posted on 4/11/14 at 7:33 am to Pendulum
Ouch.
He got you there Bones.
He got you there Bones.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News