Originally Posted by Shaft75
We're talking about two gifted athletes, so I get going either way. Both were standouts in college and did well at the combine. However, Hill stands out to me as a pretty damn good prospect. He ran a 4.36, his cone drill was like a 6.8 and vertical almost 40". He's an inch taller than Randle, about .2 seconds dater in the 40, jumps 9 inches higher. That's a pretty big advantage if you ask me. Hill's also a team player that excelled at his roll on a team that was based solely on the running game. The dude's almost a can't miss prospect and we have the chance to pick him up at the back end of the 1st round.
To me, Hill's a no brainer.
Please don't take this personally but...
1) In no way was Hill a standout in college, IMO.
2) You list only measureables when describing the ways in which Hill is better than Randle.
3) There is literally no way you could pop in college film of Hill and determine he's a can't miss prospect.
This is combine hype at its finest, IMO.