DT fatigue and Leonard Williams are not good reasons to avoid taking Quinnen Williams OR Ed Oliver

[Alka]

4 hours ago, CTM said:

QW is faster (his 10 yd split is faster too), jumps further and higher.  The numbers below are not at all identical if you think about the range of these numbers for draftable prospects.

Yes they are similiar #'s  if you are comparing them to disgusting fat bodies like @Pac . @T0mShaneand @The Crusher but there's a reason why QW based on Sparq is a full 1 SD above the mean whereas LW was -.3 SD below and it's because all of these guys are very athletic.

 

 

Warren Sapp had a 4.84 40 yard dash, was 6'2" and 300 pounds.  He's in the Hall of Fame.

Quinnen got better numbers.  He ran a 4.83 40 yard dash.  He's taller and about the same weight.  It's what you do on the field that matters, and what's in your heart.

Curtis Martin's measurables weren't amazing, but his heart was!

If QW is a future hall of fame player, I really don't care what our needs are.  You take QW and don't look back.

[RutgersJetFan]

32 minutes ago, Wonderboy said:

Joisey sucks eh eh eh eh

ya know something you suck

[#27TheDominator]

9 hours ago, CTM said:

I've been waiting to see that updated. Nott sure if these are accurate but found this earlier, the broad, bench and vert are from the combine and legit. The other stuff is coming from his pro day. Another tweet has his SS at 4.19, which is top end WR territory if true., Frustrating that this information is not reliably available and consistent

 

 

 

4.19 isn't as unheard of as I thought.  Our own Henry Anderson matched it at the 2015 combine.

 

[CTM]

13 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

4.19 isn't as unheard of as I thought.  Our own Henry Anderson matched it at the 2015 combine.

 

True but it's also attached to a guy who jumped at an elite level

Side note: Henry Anderson is also a better athlete than LW

[Wonderboy]

1 hour ago, RutgersJetFan said:

ya know something you suck

Double suck joisey boy

[RutgersJetFan]

57 minutes ago, Wonderboy said:

Double suck joisey boy

you win this battle 

[Wonderboy]

26 minutes ago, RutgersJetFan said:

you win this battle 

LOL

 

[jetsons]

https://theramswire.usatoday.com/2019/03/28/ed-oliver-pro-day-aaron-donald-comparison-nfl-draft/

 

 

How Ed Oliver's incredible pro day compares to Aaron Donald's combine

 

How Ed Oliver's incredible pro day compares to Aaron Donald's combine

Latest Rams news

How Ed Oliver's incredible pro day compares to Aaron Donald's combine

By: Cameron DaSilva | March 28, 2019 4:17 pm ET

There may not be a more dominant and unstoppable player in the NFL right now than Aaron Donald. He’s the reigning two-time Defensive Player of the Year, has made the Pro Bowl five times and been selected as a first-team All-Pro in each of the last four years.

The Rams’ stud defensive tackle is a rare talent and his laundry list of accolades makes you wonder how in the world he fell to No. 13 in the 2014 NFL draft. His size, or lack thereof, was a concern for many teams picking in the top 10, causing him to fall in the Rams’ lap.

Surely, the NFL won’t make the same mistake with Houston defensive lineman Ed Oliver this year, right? After seeing him put together an incredible pro day performance on Thursday, it’s hard to imagine Oliver falling out of the top 10.

Oliver had Twitter buzzing about his on-field workout at Houston, seemingly cementing his spot as a future top-10 pick, potentially going as early as the first five selections. For a man his size, at 6-foot-2 and 281 pounds, it’s mind-blowing to see him move as quickly and effortlessly as he does.

Almost no one gets compared to Donald from a physical standpoint, but Oliver is as close as it gets. He’s a similar size to Donald, who weighed in at 6-foot-1, 285 pounds at the 2014 combine. So how did their on-field workouts compare? He’s a side-by-side look at Donald’s combine compared to Oliver’s pro day.

	40-yard dash	3-cone	Short shuttle	Vertical	Broad	Bench
Donald	4.68s	7.11s	4.39s	32″	116″	35 reps
Oliver	4.73s	7.15s	4.22s	36″	120″	32 reps

 

As you can see, Donald edged out Oliver in the 40-yard dash, the three-cone drill and on the bench. Oliver got Donald in the other three categories, headlined by a remarkable 4.22-second short shuttle.

To put that number into perspective, take a look at this tweet, which compares it to other NFL stars.

Oliver may not turn out to be Donald on the field, but from a physical standpoint, it’s impossible to ignore the comparisons. He’s a specimen with an elite combination of size and speed, while also possessing great strength for a defensive tackle.

[kdels62]

7 hours ago, Alka said:

Warren Sapp had a 4.84 40 yard dash, was 6'2" and 300 pounds.  He's in the Hall of Fame.

Quinnen got better numbers.  He ran a 4.83 40 yard dash.  He's taller and about the same weight.  It's what you do on the field that matters, and what's in your heart.

Curtis Martin's measurables weren't amazing, but his heart was!

If QW is a future hall of fame player, I really don't care what our needs are.  You take QW and don't look back.

Nobody is saying to draft a player that’s only good at workouts. We’re saying that athleticism is important in evaluating potential. 

One of the best things about using analytics and creating physical benchmarks is that you’ll learn hidden elements of player selection. You’ll also learn that athleticism is more important for some positions and roles (pass rushing) and less important for others (traditional running back). It’s why Von Miller needs to be a physical freak and why LeVeon Bell gets to be an average nfl athlete.

[Jet Nut]

12 hours ago, RobR said:

I figured you would say that when you come into this thread only to defend a Jet player that hasn't lived up to his expectations.

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

I should have taken my own earlier advice and just not responded too you.

I figured you would be one of those confused or ignored what I said.

Saying someone is athletic, is what his scouting report was doesnt have a friggen thing to do with him having met expectations or not.

That you apparently dont understand that someone who is athletic doesnt mean hes a great player.

So I've explained that for you, lets see if you can understand it.

[Jet Nut]

12 hours ago, TeddEY said:

Because people are dumb and use words?

Gholston was also called athletic.  He wasn’t.

Because you and a few others see words and dont know what they mean?
Gholston wasnt athletic either?
You just cant separate athletic from productive

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

44 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

Because you and a few others see words and dont know what they mean?
Gholston wasnt athletic either?
You just cant separate athletic from productive

Adjectives are imprecise. That’s it. People are wasting their time trying to further dumb down a point that can be made in its entirety in three words. Just for you. Feel special?

[dbatesman]

13 hours ago, T0mShane said:

Yeah, that’s totally how the Patriots win all their rings. Defensive tackle play. 

 

10 hours ago, RutgersJetFan said:

Nah bitch, SPARQ.

The next Aaron Donald can’t help this team win, but the next Kevin White can

[ZachEY]

57 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

Because you and a few others see words and dont know what they mean?
Gholston wasnt athletic either?
You just cant separate athletic from productive

 

10 minutes ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

Adjectives are imprecise. 

This.

Presently, it's not even clear you understand what you're arguing.

[Jet Nut]

19 minutes ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

Adjectives are imprecise. That’s it. People are wasting their time trying to further dumb down a point that can be made in its entirety in three words. Just for you. Feel special?

Dumb down, more insults.  Sorry you cant figure out whats being said.  

[Jet Nut]

9 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

 

This.

Presently, it's not even clear you understand what you're arguing.

Heres the thing, I'm not arguing.

You and others just cant seem to get whats pretty simple.  Someone saying LW is athletic isnt saying he hasnt missed the mark as a top rated draft pick.

But its like to say one means another and the arguing continues.  Some even feel the need to insult, sure fire proof that they dont get it.  One is arguing that Gholston wasnt athletic, perfectly proving that athletic and good are confusing. 

Fine, we dont agree if hes athletic or not, I dont get why the insults are still flying.  Im bored shltless and done.  

[ZachEY]

57 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

Heres the thing, I'm not arguing.

You and others just cant seem to get whats pretty simple.  Someone saying LW is athletic isnt saying he hasnt missed the mark as a top rated draft pick.

But its like to say one means another and the arguing continues.  Some even feel the need to insult, sure fire proof that they dont get it.  One is arguing that Gholston wasnt athletic, perfectly proving that athletic and good are confusing. 

Fine, we dont agree if hes athletic or not, I dont get why the insults are still flying.  Im bored shltless and done.  

No one is arguing that athleticism = good in any kind of perfect correlate.

[RutgersJetFan]

1 hour ago, dbatesman said:

 

The next Aaron Donald can’t help this team win, but the next Kevin White can

I will bet you 8 billion dollars that Williams and Oliver do not turn out to be Aaron Donald.

[T0mShane]

5 minutes ago, RutgersJetFan said:

I will bet you 8 billion dollars that Williams and Oliver do not turn out to be Aaron Donald.

Why do you hate athletes doug 

[Jet Nut]

33 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

No one is arguing that athleticism = good in any kind of perfect correlate.

Really, you need to go back to some of the comments.  Along with saying hes athletic = homer.

This is tiring.  A couple think hes not athletic.  How many times can I say, ok, just dont agree.  Its not this big a F'n deal, that buttfumbles, name calling, etc were brought in.  

 

[RutgersJetFan]

28 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

Why do you hate athletes doug 

there is no doug there is only zuul 

[RutgersJetFan]

Also let’s be real here: We are not talking about either of these guys at 3 because they might maybe kinda probably may or may not be Aaron Donald; we’re talking about them at 3 because this draft sucks. That’s it. And that’s not enough of a reason for the Jets to draft more interior DL. They lost the right to take that shot the moment they stopped drafting DL in the first for 10 years in a row and finally drafted a quarterback. 

[dbatesman]

44 minutes ago, RutgersJetFan said:

I will bet you 8 billion dollars that Williams and Oliver do not turn out to be Aaron Donald.

Cool. Which guy in this draft turns out to be Larry Fitzgerald? Or Joe Thomas? That’s who we should draft IMO

[RutgersJetFan]

1 minute ago, dbatesman said:

Cool. Which guy in this draft turns out to be Larry Fitzgerald? Or Joe Thomas? That’s who we should draft IMO

So you’re scared to put up the $8 billion, I see.

[Jetsfan80]

I like this. Smart posters are on completely opposite sides of the debate on this one. That’s rare.

[Jetsfan80]

Ideally, we can all agree that we want to come out of this draft with a franchise LT, starting C, and stud WR to help Darnold.

 

But practically, it’s hard to count on Jawaan Taylor or Jonah Williams being 100 % “that guy” at LT. There are only a few quality Centers, it seems, and the best bets at WR are going to be late in the 1st and 2nd rounds.

 

Trading down likely makes everyone happy, but if teams don’t want to move up for anything close to what we want back...what can you do? A 2020 first rounder sounds nice, but my guess is other teams recognize that draft class should be stronger than this one, and will value that pick higher than a 2nd rounder like the chart says.

 

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

18 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

I like this. Smart posters are on completely opposite sides of the debate on this one. That’s rare.

Smart like as in athletic?

[NoBowles]

Has anyone seen a correlation on NFL success and SPARQ scores? I searched, and couldn't find anything. I'd like to see if a higher SPARQ score is indicative of NFL success, and I'd also like to understand if a lower SPARQ score is indicative of NFL failure.

I don't think using one example in either direction is enough to make wholesale changes to drafting philosophy on it, but if there is a strong correlation in both directions, then it absolutely should be used. I haven't found anything, and some are throwing it around as though it exists. I am not saying it doesn't, I just haven't found it and would love to be educated on it if it does exist. 

SPARQ is absolutely a tool, but some are throwing it around like its an absolute baseline for drafting a player that they must have a really high SPARQ score.

I am skeptical about a score to rank athleticism for a few reasons, first off, I firmly believe that athleticism can be developed and improved upon. That means that some people could be training better for SPARQ than others, which would make it strongly biased and not a great indicator of athleticism. Second, a not so great SPARQ score can be indicative of not the right training.

In addition, I believe the highest levels of sports, thinking quickness is every bit as important as athleticism. There have been far better athletes at their respective sports than Jordan and Gretzky, however, very few have ever played anywhere near their level, because of their brains ability to react at game speed.

Its quite possible that below some minimum SPARQ threshold, a player just can't succeed because they are not athletic enough.

Before we start ruling out players or drafting players based on SPARQ scores, we really should understand their correlation. Any help would be appreciated from those who are claiming it is an absolute mandate.

 

[Jetsfan80]

Has anyone seen a correlation on NFL success and SPARQ scores? I searched, and couldn't find anything. I'd like to see if a higher SPARQ score is indicative of NFL success, and I'd also like to understand if a lower SPARQ score is indicative of NFL failure.

I don't think using one example in either direction is enough to make wholesale changes to drafting philosophy on it, but if there is a strong correlation in both directions, then it absolutely should be used. I haven't found anything, and some are throwing it around as though it exists. I am not saying it doesn't, I just haven't found it and would love to be educated on it if it does exist. 

SPARQ is absolutely a tool, but some are throwing it around like its an absolute baseline for drafting a player that they must have a really high SPARQ score.

I am skeptical about a score to rank athleticism for a few reasons, first off, I firmly believe that athleticism can be developed and improved upon. That means that some people could be training better for SPARQ than others, which would make it strongly biased and not a great indicator of athleticism. Second, a not so great SPARQ score can be indicative of not the right training.

In addition, I believe the highest levels of sports, thinking quickness is every bit as important as athleticism. There have been far better athletes at their respective sports than Jordan and Gretzky, however, very few have ever played anywhere near their level, because of their brains ability to react at game speed.

Its quite possible that below some minimum SPARQ threshold, a player just can't succeed because they are not athletic enough.

Before we start ruling out players or drafting players based on SPARQ scores, we really should understand their correlation. Any help would be appreciated from those who are claiming it is an absolute mandate.

 

 

Certain elements of athleticism absolutely CANNOT be taught. We saw that with Lorenzo Mauldin. He had stiff hips in school and stiff hips in the pros. And his SPARQ score was, you guessed it, quite low.

 

SPARQ helps show if guys at certain positions can cut it at the NFL level. It’s been consistently helpful in evaluating pass rushers.

 

Of course, there’s even better tools out there. Waldo being one of them. And many NFL teams use tools that are far more complex.

 

Analytics are here to stay. They’re part of the furniture of all major sports leagues now. And that’s a good thing.

[Scoop24]

14 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

Certain elements of athleticism absolutely CANNOT be taught. We saw that with Lorenzo Mauldin. He had stiff hips in school and stiff hips in the pros. And his SPARQ score was, you guessed it, quite low.

 

SPARQ helps show if guys at certain positions can cut it at the NFL level. It’s been consistently helpful in evaluating pass rushers.

 

Of course, there’s even better tools out there. Waldo being one of them. And many NFL teams use tools that are far more complex.

 

Analytics are here to stay. They’re part of the furniture of all major sports leagues now. And that’s a good thing.

I remember the guy everyone wanted with that pick was  Eli Harold  who was a terrific athlete who hasn’t done anything In his career as well..

i think all the advanced stats and testing  is useful as long as it’s used in context 

[NoBowles]

42 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

Certain elements of athleticism absolutely CANNOT be taught. We saw that with Lorenzo Mauldin. He had stiff hips in school and stiff hips in the pros. And his SPARQ score was, you guessed it, quite low.

 

SPARQ helps show if guys at certain positions can cut it at the NFL level. It’s been consistently helpful in evaluating pass rushers.

 

Of course, there’s even better tools out there. Waldo being one of them. And many NFL teams use tools that are far more complex.

 

Analytics are here to stay. They’re part of the furniture of all major sports leagues now. And that’s a good thing.

I'd like to see proof of this, that is all I am asking. And I'd like to see it in both directions.

Yes, analytics are here to stay. I make a living as a statistician, so I am quite familiar with analytics. I am also quite familiar with how the misuse of analytics and statistics happens as well. People make a hypothesis, then find a few examples of stats that prove out their point, rather than conducting an unbiased study.  I can tell you I have seen examples of misuse of statistics that are extremely damaging. I am not saying that is the case, I am looking for some unbiased study that shows correlation, that leads to the conclusions that you and others are coming to. I have not seen any, but that doesnt mean they don't exist, and it also doesnt mean these conclusions are correct. I am just looking for some evidence before I jump all in on the bandwagon.

[NoBowles]

26 minutes ago, Scoop24 said:

i think all the advanced stats and testing  is useful as long as it’s used in context 

Exactly, this is my exact point as well. 

[dbatesman]

1 hour ago, NoBowles said:

Has anyone seen a correlation on NFL success and SPARQ scores? I searched, and couldn't find anything. I'd like to see if a higher SPARQ score is indicative of NFL success, and I'd also like to understand if a lower SPARQ score is indicative of NFL failure.

I don't think using one example in either direction is enough to make wholesale changes to drafting philosophy on it, but if there is a strong correlation in both directions, then it absolutely should be used. I haven't found anything, and some are throwing it around as though it exists. I am not saying it doesn't, I just haven't found it and would love to be educated on it if it does exist. 

SPARQ is absolutely a tool, but some are throwing it around like its an absolute baseline for drafting a player that they must have a really high SPARQ score.

I am skeptical about a score to rank athleticism for a few reasons, first off, I firmly believe that athleticism can be developed and improved upon. That means that some people could be training better for SPARQ than others, which would make it strongly biased and not a great indicator of athleticism. Second, a not so great SPARQ score can be indicative of not the right training.

In addition, I believe the highest levels of sports, thinking quickness is every bit as important as athleticism. There have been far better athletes at their respective sports than Jordan and Gretzky, however, very few have ever played anywhere near their level, because of their brains ability to react at game speed.

Its quite possible that below some minimum SPARQ threshold, a player just can't succeed because they are not athletic enough.

Before we start ruling out players or drafting players based on SPARQ scores, we really should understand their correlation. Any help would be appreciated from those who are claiming it is an absolute mandate.

 

I’m honestly not sure on SPARQ, but the Waldo numbers have been uncanny: http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=439601

[NoBowles]

7 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

I’m honestly not sure on SPARQ, but the Waldo numbers have been uncanny: http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=439601

Thank you, I will read through 

[varjet]

I am not professing to be an expert in NFL defensive schemes.

I just strikes me that, if the Jets are really all in a 3-4 defense, they should be looking for the players that make a difference in a 3-4 defense. 

That, I think, are 3-4 OLB, CB, ILB (which we already have), NT and 3-4 DE.  

The Jets are spending $27mm next year on a new ILB and 3-4 DE, plus Avery, plus Trumaine.   I don't think they left themselves the ability to do a switcheroo depending on who they drafted.  I do think that they got lucky with Anthony Barr, because that was a questionable fit.  

They are spending $14mm on Leo, which is probably bit for that defense.  

I do think that if Bosa was there the Jets could probably figure out a way to use him, although I think the Chargers switched to a 4-3 after they drafted Joey.  

So Josh Allen and Marquez are likely good fits for what they want.   The answer for this team is to trade down and get more picks, and try to get a WR, Sweat, a Center.  I would have kept Pennel.