chuckm said:
emotion and homerism are better methods of rating prospects?
Get off it........ I explained exactly why I'll take Young over Matt..... In all my posts on the subject, never have I even mentioned(considered) the fact that Vince is from Houston....... That means nothing to me. Right now, I'm saying take Vince, if we are going to use the top pick. If Kubes & Co. ain't feeling him after they sit down, and interview him, I understand.....
Homerism, is you who'd be all over Harrington's jock if he were playing in Houston, and ragging on Carr if he were in Detroit.
Anybody who picks the BPA simply based only on Paper facts, doesn't really know what they are doing..... there is a lot more than paper facts to players. The player has to fit the team, the teams situation, the scheme (offensively/defensively)........
If you're going to build a zone blocking OLine with smaller personell, You'd better have a mobile QB who can think while he's running towards the sideline. Picking Matt Lienart is not very smart, if him starting is not a possibility come early September. We sign David Carr to a three year deal, it's better to let him think the job is his for at least next season. He gets all the snaps in practice.
You think Lienart is the best QB in the draft, give me three reasons why he would be better than Carr...
Runner said:
I hear you, but it's also the system that picked all the busts and stars in all of the rounds. It is what they have. It is a pretty weird coincidence that most experts, teams, and fans rate Leinart higher than Young except in Texas.
Nobody is saying Lienart has the upside Vince has........ Vince is off the chart. If you need a QB to start next year, Lienart is your man...... but you better be pretty solid all 'round, especially at protecting your Qb. We will be better next year, but Matt won't be the last piece of our puzzle. Not too long ago, the highest rated running back in the draft was a fella named Ricky Williams.... but he was not the first running back picked in that draft......... I think that worked out pretty well for the Colts.
xtruroyaltyx said:
Originally Posted by thunderkyss
Duece McAllister, a truly elite NFL RB.
First three years.
Games... 47 Games Started...35 ATT.. 692 Yards..3120 AVg...4.9 long...76 TD... 22 20+yards....... 27 FDs..... 138
Domanick Davis........ just some guy.
First three years.
Games.... 40 Games Started...36 Att...770 Yards...3195 Avg...4.1 long...51 TD... 23 20+yards.......13 FDs.........142
Am I missing something or are duece's numbers way better than davis'
You'll have to define way better. Both started only 35/36 games in their first three years(3x16=48, so they both had injuries).... DD carried the ball 770 times versus McAllisters 692, yet they played the same number of games. if anything, this would point to DD being just as, if not more durable than Duece. In his first three years, Duece ran for 3120 yards(I wouldn't say this is
way better than 3195) they both average 4 ypc( less than a yard cannot be considered
way better) Duece does have a longer longest run than DD, and he breaks 20 yards/carry more frequently than DD, but DD has more first downs...... which is all you need out of your running game, especially considering they both have the same number of TDs..... As long as he is a threat to get the first down, teams will account for him.
I'll challenge anyone who thinks Duece is an elite back, and DD is just another back... In 2004, Duece ran for only 1074 yards in 14 games..... & you should consider his QB has avg over 3500 yards, and rated over 80 every season he played, plus he has always been on the field with 1000+ yard recievers. In 2005, he missed 11 games, 2 in 2004, if you couldn't do the math. 1 in 2002, and 12 in 2001.
If anybody is missing that one piece to their game, it's N.O. & it's not their QB.