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

[dbatesman]

7 minutes ago, NoBowles said:

Thank you, I will read through 

No sweat. That particular thread is super old, obviously, but it’s where a lot of the thinking on this comes from. Waldo disappeared from the internet shortly afterwards; I heard somewhere that he got hired by an NFL front office, but I have no idea if that’s actually true. Other people have done similar things since (FO has SackSEER and a guy on Twitter named Justis Mosqueda has something he calls Force Players, both of which are solid), but I Waldo’s stuff best because the formulas are simple and the data needed to calculate them is easy to get.

[CTM]

28 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

No sweat. That particular thread is super old, obviously, but it’s where a lot of the thinking on this comes from. Waldo disappeared from the internet shortly afterwards; I heard somewhere that he got hired by an NFL front office, but I have no idea if that’s actually true. Other people have done similar things since (FO has SackSEER and a guy on Twitter named Justis Mosqueda has something he calls Force Players, both of which are solid), but I Waldo’s stuff best because the formulas are simple and the data needed to calculate them is easy to get.

Waldo is more accurate than SPARQ, Gholston is a prime example I believe. Most of the numbers are easy to get but 10 yr splits have been the most challenging for me, mainly from a reliability perspective. I often see conflicting reports

[dbatesman]

52 minutes ago, CTM said:

Waldo is more accurate than SPARQ, Gholston is a prime example I believe. Most of the numbers are easy to get but 10 yr splits have been the most challenging for me, mainly from a reliability perspective. I often see conflicting reports

Agreed. It’s also surprisingly hard to find one place that just has all the combine results in one spreadsheet. Super annoying.

[Eaton Beaver]

The bottom line with all these combine numbers and SPARQ stats is that they don't take into consideration the heart and the commitment each player has. I watch Leo and I don't see either attributes. He actually stated that if Bowles was fired he might as well find another team, really? I believe he was worried about being held accountable for his play,,,trade him for a 2nd if you can get it..

[Philc1]

On 3/29/2019 at 11:31 PM, 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.

Forget the combine numbers which are off the charts for QW look at his tape

 

“One year wonder” yet his technique and football iq look like he’s a 10 year NFL Veteran

 

Quinnen Williams is gonna be really friggin good

 

[Philc1]

21 hours 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

DK Metcalf the guy who wasn’t even the number one receiver on his own college team duh

 

Either that or future Right Tackles Taylor and Jonah

 

[Jetsfan80]

21 hours ago, Eaton Beaver said:

The bottom line with all these combine numbers and SPARQ stats is that they don't take into consideration the heart and the commitment each player has.

That's why teams have extensive interviews with the players, and scrutinize everything that is said about the player. 

How do you suggest we measure "commitment and heart", exactly?  Lorenzo Mauldin would have finished high on that metric, btw. 

[Bocajetfan]

1 hour ago, Jetsfan80 said:

That's why teams have extensive interviews with the players, and scrutinize everything that is said about the player. 

How do you suggest we measure "commitment and heart", exactly?  Lorenzo Mauldin would have finished high on that metric, btw. 

And why the draft is such a crapshoot. Getting a true read of the heart of a player often is the difference between a true player and a bust.

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

https://3sigmaathlete.com/sparq-rankings-2019/defensive-line/

 

[Philc1]

On 3/30/2019 at 11:22 AM, dbatesman said:

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

Lol

[RobR]

55 minutes ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

https://3sigmaathlete.com/sparq-rankings-2019/defensive-line/

 

I've been touting this kid since he's been a true freshman. Some hot takes in this thread I started almost three years ago on another board. Since then he's  backed up the hype.

http://newyorkjetshampur.com/thread/8167/2019-1st-draft-pick

[#27TheDominator]

On 3/30/2019 at 2:25 PM, CTM said:

Waldo is more accurate than SPARQ, Gholston is a prime example I believe. Most of the numbers are easy to get but 10 yr splits have been the most challenging for me, mainly from a reliability perspective. I often see conflicting reports

I don't think this is particularly fair.  SPARQ isn't accurate for what?  It is simply a measure of athleticism.  Waldo is an example of correlating the athleticism to a position. 

Looking at combine numbers can explain why guys are successful or unsuccessful.  Looking at that, you can project if that will continue at the next level.  Waldo and these others are attempts to use that data to determine the likelihood of success, based on the numbers. 

[CTM]

15 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

I don't think this is particularly fair.  SPARQ isn't accurate for what?  It is simply a measure of athleticism.  Waldo is an example of correlating the athleticism to a position. 

Looking at combine numbers can explain why guys are successful or unsuccessful.  Looking at that, you can project if that will continue at the next level.  Waldo and these others are attempts to use that data to determine the likelihood of success, based on the numbers. 

Accurate in predicting success based on high pSparq. I'm not saying it's useless and essentially agree with you. My point was that if you were going to use either as yay/nay criteria Waldo is the better bet.

[#27TheDominator]

28 minutes ago, CTM said:

Accurate in predicting success based on high pSparq. I'm not saying it's useless and essentially agree with you. My point was that if you were going to use either as yay/nay criteria Waldo is the better bet.

Much better, but isn't Waldo limited to pass rushers?  I guess the twitch and some of the other factors are useful, but still. 

Best thing about Waldo is Gholston and Maybin on the top of his high risk, despite the silly non-draftniks calling them workout warriors that were drafted solely on their combine numbers.  Nick Bosa 17.5 sacks, 0 INTs in 29 games, Vernon Gholston 22.5 sacks, 1 INT, in 31 games.  "We have to draft on production, not combine numbers!"

[Sperm Edwards]

Is this the "official" 2019 SPARQ list (for DL)? 

https://3sigmaathlete.com/sparq-rankings-2019/defensive-line/

I'm not as invested in looking up or memorizing these measurables as many of you are, so I don't know if this is a guess or prediction by some blogger, or if it's official numbers or what. 

So this lists Oliver's SPARQ at 147.1 (99.5 percentile compared to NFL DTs) and QW's at 124.5 (83.1 percentile). 

Are there a lot of examples of highly touted prospects with this comparative SPARQ percentile who end up being just pretty good, or outright meh, in the NFL? Honestly curious if there's any past correlation, and not just "here's this one guy who lived up to his SPARQ for the better and another for the worse, like Donald and Leo.

Again, I'm only talking about those who were highly touted in the first place, not among any prospects regardless of past production, who are late round/UDFA level prospects, otherwise people would have stopped looking beyond SPARQ years ago. Like I can see there are others with elite SPARQ scores and they can't all be expected to be top 10 draft picks -- e.g. the 2nd best on this year's DL list, Ray Smith; or Ben Banogu among edge rushers and looking it up he's supposed to be a 4th round pick). 

[CTM]

2 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Is this the "official" 2019 SPARQ list (for DL)? 

https://3sigmaathlete.com/sparq-rankings-2019/defensive-line/

I'm not as invested in looking up or memorizing these measurables as many of you are, so I don't know if this is a guess or prediction by some blogger, or if it's official numbers or what. 

So this lists Oliver's SPARQ at 147.1 (99.5 percentile compared to NFL DTs) and QW's at 124.5 (83.1 percentile). 

Are there a lot of examples of highly touted prospects with this comparative SPARQ percentile who end up being just pretty good, or outright meh, in the NFL? Honestly curious if there's any past correlation, and not just "here's this one guy who lived up to his SPARQ for the better and another for the worse, like Donald and Leo.

Again, I'm only talking about those who were highly touted in the first place, not among any prospects regardless of past production, who are late round/UDFA level prospects, otherwise people would have stopped looking beyond SPARQ years ago. Like I can see there are others with elite SPARQ scores and they can't all be expected to be top 10 draft picks -- e.g. the 2nd best on this year's DL list, Ray Smith; or Ben Banogu among edge rushers and looking it up he's supposed to be a 4th round pick). 

3sigma is where I get it, and most of these require you filter based on production / scout evaluation first as everyone acknowledges there's more to NFL success than being an elite athlete.

The waldo formula does what you want to do, 1st 2 posts here. But the information below is dated (although the formulas are there and easy to calc). I ran it on some of top prospects and Allen/Bosa are mid/low risk. Oliver is low risk due to explosive power.

https://247sports.com/nfl/browns/Board/103068/Contents/INSANE-DE-amp-OLBs-Pass-Rusher-Metrics-and-Stats-70894318/

[Sperm Edwards]

43 minutes ago, CTM said:

3sigma is where I get it, and most of these require you filter based on production / scout evaluation first as everyone acknowledges there's more to NFL success than being an elite athlete.

The waldo formula does what you want to do, 1st 2 posts here. But the information below is dated (although the formulas are there and easy to calc). I ran it on some of top prospects and Allen/Bosa are mid/low risk. Oliver is low risk due to explosive power.

https://247sports.com/nfl/browns/Board/103068/Contents/INSANE-DE-amp-OLBs-Pass-Rusher-Metrics-and-Stats-70894318/

Even that is a problem because it doesn't say when the light went on. It equates someone who's good right away (or nearly right away) with someone who was meh for a long time, but good enough to stay employed, and then late in his career he had one clearly-best season.

Though there are plenty such players I wasn't even thinking of them until I saw Jason Babin on one of these older lists. By this waldo formula he was a very worthwhile pick in round 1, reaching their top tier of measured NFL success. Meanwhile he clearly wasn't (started as a rookie, like most 1st rounders do, and then he didn't start >4 games in a season again until his 30s, on his 6th NFL team). But hey, Babin made a couple pro bowls on his 6th NFL team, and had one way outlier 18-sack season, so therefore he was a smart pick for the Texans so many years earlier.

Then there are other outliers, like backup stiffs who only made the probowl due to a year of good return stats on specials (though I'd need proof that there are enough of them to skew the overall stats, in terms of outcome predictions in the future, it does add a margin of error). Regardless, such non-starting PBers show up as being more successful than the many excellent year-after-year starters (say Brandon Moore level to make it easy for Jets fans); players around the league who technically never made a PB but were solid and reliable for so many years and were cumulatively more valuable than many one-time PB guards.

Then further still there are those who now only made the PB because they're not on either SB team and also because one or more 'real' PB players either got injured late or outright declined to play. Also that it uses PB rather than AP (or better, use PB or AP; first article I found when searching that listed 7 AP1 players who didn't make the cut in PB voting). 

So what do you have for me? Give me. 

[Sperm Edwards]

On 3/30/2019 at 1:54 PM, dbatesman said:

No sweat. That particular thread is super old, obviously, but it’s where a lot of the thinking on this comes from. Waldo disappeared from the internet shortly afterwards; I heard somewhere that he got hired by an NFL front office, but I have no idea if that’s actually true. Other people have done similar things since (FO has SackSEER and a guy on Twitter named Justis Mosqueda has something he calls Force Players, both of which are solid), but I Waldo’s stuff best because the formulas are simple and the data needed to calculate them is easy to get.

Oddly apt that people wonder where's waldo

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

2 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Is this the "official" 2019 SPARQ list (for DL)? 

https://3sigmaathlete.com/sparq-rankings-2019/defensive-line/

I'm not as invested in looking up or memorizing these measurables as many of you are, so I don't know if this is a guess or prediction by some blogger, or if it's official numbers or what. 

So this lists Oliver's SPARQ at 147.1 (99.5 percentile compared to NFL DTs) and QW's at 124.5 (83.1 percentile). 

Are there a lot of examples of highly touted prospects with this comparative SPARQ percentile who end up being just pretty good, or outright meh, in the NFL? Honestly curious if there's any past correlation, and not just "here's this one guy who lived up to his SPARQ for the better and another for the worse, like Donald and Leo.

Again, I'm only talking about those who were highly touted in the first place, not among any prospects regardless of past production, who are late round/UDFA level prospects, otherwise people would have stopped looking beyond SPARQ years ago. Like I can see there are others with elite SPARQ scores and they can't all be expected to be top 10 draft picks -- e.g. the 2nd best on this year's DL list, Ray Smith; or Ben Banogu among edge rushers and looking it up he's supposed to be a 4th round pick). 

 

59 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Even that is a problem because it doesn't say when the light went on. It equates someone who's good right away (or nearly right away) with someone who was meh for a long time, but good enough to stay employed, and then late in his career he had one clearly-best season.

Though there are plenty such players I wasn't even thinking of them until I saw Jason Babin on one of these older lists. By this waldo formula he was a very worthwhile pick in round 1, reaching their top tier of measured NFL success. Meanwhile he clearly wasn't (started as a rookie, like most 1st rounders do, and then he didn't start >4 games in a season again until his 30s, on his 6th NFL team). But hey, Babin made a couple pro bowls on his 6th NFL team, and had one way outlier 18-sack season, so therefore he was a smart pick for the Texans so many years earlier.

Then there are other outliers, like backup stiffs who only made the probowl due to a year of good return stats on specials (though I'd need proof that there are enough of them to skew the overall stats, in terms of outcome predictions in the future, it does add a margin of error). Regardless, such non-starting PBers show up as being more successful than the many excellent year-after-year starters (say Brandon Moore level to make it easy for Jets fans); players around the league who technically never made a PB but were solid and reliable for so many years and were cumulatively more valuable than many one-time PB guards.

Then further still there are those who now only made the PB because they're not on either SB team and also because one or more 'real' PB players either got injured late or outright declined to play. Also that it uses PB rather than AP (or better, use PB or AP; first article I found when searching that listed 7 AP1 players who didn't make the cut in PB voting). 

So what do you have for me? Give me. 

This seems a lot of words to ask if context matters particularly when you already know the answer.

[Jetsfan80]

This seems a lot of words to ask if context matters particularly when you already know the answer.

 

He did that exact thing to me in another thread, lol.

[greenwichjetfan]

This thread is A+. Thanks for all of the additional sites/references guys.

[bitonti]

On 3/29/2019 at 2:21 PM, Beerfish said:

I don;t care about the Leo williams comparison I care about picking the same non premium position year after year after year.

How many Aaron Donalds are there right now?  1  So Quinnen HAS to be aaron donald to be a successful pick.

It is far easier to find a competent to good DT in a draft especially this one than other positions.

We still have no outside pass rush

No #1 Wr

Poor oline

No legit #2 CB

Opportunity cost.

Lets assume all this is true

the draft goes 1 Bosa 2 Allen there is no trade call,

who do you pick at 3? 

Simple question 

***

just for argument's sake lets' give these guys letter grades as prospects,

 

1.1 DE 1 - A+  (Nick Bosa's )

1.2 OLB 1 - A (Josh Allen)

 

now the Jets are at 1.3 the choices are 

DT 1 - A+ (Q Williams)

DT 2 - A+ (E Oliver)

DE 1 - A- (R Gary) 

DE 2 - A- (C Ferrell) 

and what? ILB 1 - A? (Devin White) 

WR 1 - B (DK Metcalf? K'Neal Harry?) 

OT 1 - B-/C+ (Jonah Williams with short arms?)  

whoever CB 1 is Greedy??? (B at best) 

there is no WR or OL worth the 3 pick, something like the top 7 prospects in this draft are defenders 

if no QB goes 1.1 they are looking at this scenario 

[bitonti]

20 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Is this the "official" 2019 SPARQ list (for DL)? 

https://3sigmaathlete.com/sparq-rankings-2019/defensive-line/

I'm not as invested in looking up or memorizing these measurables as many of you are, so I don't know if this is a guess or prediction by some blogger, or if it's official numbers or what. 

So this lists Oliver's SPARQ at 147.1 (99.5 percentile compared to NFL DTs) and QW's at 124.5 (83.1 percentile). 

Are there a lot of examples of highly touted prospects with this comparative SPARQ percentile who end up being just pretty good, or outright meh, in the NFL? Honestly curious if there's any past correlation, and not just "here's this one guy who lived up to his SPARQ for the better and another for the worse, like Donald and Leo. 

 

it's a 2 part question 1) highly touted 2) high sparq

long story short  there hasn't been a "highly touted" DL prospect with Ed Oliver's sparq  DL score in the last 5 years 

on the DL Aaron Donald scored a 97.1 that worked out but the archive only goes back to 2014

widening the search beyond just the DL position, Saquon Barkley scored a 98.4 in 2018 and that worked out well. in 2017 Marshon Lattimore a 97.1 at CB. 

on the con side maybe CB Kevin King 99.2 and OL Kolton Miller also scored a 99.2 in 2018 but not sure if their scores pushed him up (wasn't "highly touted" during the season etc)  

it could be seen either way but in general a top notch prospect with a 99 sparq is rare and should not be dismissed quickly

[Beerfish]

57 minutes ago, bitonti said:

Lets assume all this is true

the draft goes 1 Bosa 2 Allen there is no trade call,

who do you pick at 3? 

Simple question 

***

just for argument's sake lets' give these guys letter grades as prospects,

 

1.1 DE 1 - A+  (Nick Bosa's )

1.2 OLB 1 - A (Josh Allen)

 

now the Jets are at 1.3 the choices are 

DT 1 - A+ (Q Williams)

DT 2 - A+ (E Oliver)

DE 1 - A- (R Gary) 

DE 2 - A- (C Ferrell) 

and what? ILB 1 - A? (Devin White) 

WR 1 - B (DK Metcalf? K'Neal Harry?) 

OT 1 - B-/C+ (Jonah Williams with short arms?)  

whoever CB 1 is Greedy??? (B at best) 

there is no WR or OL worth the 3 pick, something like the top 7 prospects in this draft are defenders 

if no QB goes 1.1 they are looking at this scenario 

Why are bosa and Allen going 1 and 2 if Williams is by far the best prospect in the draft?

[bitonti]

12 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

Why are bosa and Allen going 1 and 2 if Williams is by far the best prospect in the draft?

news broke this weekend that Cardinals reportedly meeting with Nick Bosa and he's the lead dog at 1.1 

https://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/nfl/cardinals/2019/04/01/nick-bosa-arizona-cardinals-2019-nfl-draft-speculation-rumors-news/3331419002/ 

Assume the SF take one of Allen or Williams (and Bosa is #1 on their board too) the Jets have to take the best available player (Williams or Oliver, if that's their grade)

No one knows what will happen but Bosa going 1 and no QBs taken by 1.3 has always been a realistic scenario 

again, if no DT< the question is what's the pick at 1.3? rashan Gary? 

[ZachEY]

On 3/31/2019 at 10:07 PM, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

https://3sigmaathlete.com/sparq-rankings-2019/defensive-line/

 

Really don't want a DT, but I don't see how this gives you much of a choice.

Everyone else is a reach at 3.

[SpartanJet]

15 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

Why are bosa and Allen going 1 and 2 if Williams is by far the best prospect in the draft?

Everyone execpt Mac knows the answer to this one.  Something about impact positions vs non impact positions who knows just keep picking those DT's and safeties Mac.

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

5 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

Really don't want a DT, but I don't see how this gives you much of a choice.

Everyone else is a reach at 3.

Everyone else is a reach at 1.

[CTM]

1 hour ago, bitonti said:

it's a 2 part question 1) highly touted 2) high sparq

long story short  there hasn't been a "highly touted" DL prospect with Ed Oliver's sparq  DL score in the last 5 years 

on the DL Aaron Donald scored a 97.1 that worked out but the archive only goes back to 2014

widening the search beyond just the DL position, Saquon Barkley scored a 98.4 in 2018 and that worked out well. in 2017 Marshon Lattimore a 97.1 at CB. 

on the con side maybe CB Kevin King 99.2 and OL Kolton Miller also scored a 99.2 in 2018 but not sure if their scores pushed him up (wasn't "highly touted" during the season etc)  

it could be seen either way but in general a top notch prospect with a 99 sparq is rare and should not be dismissed quickly

Exactly. This is supplemental to scout rating. In a basic sense:

High rated by scouts/productive + high sparq (or waldo) = strong pick.

High rated by scouts/productive + low sparq =  buyer beware

Low rated by scouts/low productivity +  high sparq = buyer beware.

 

[Paradis]

1 hour ago, bitonti said:

Lets assume all this is true

the draft goes 1 Bosa 2 Allen there is no trade call,

who do you pick at 3? 

Simple question 

***

just for argument's sake lets' give these guys letter grades as prospects,

 

1.1 DE 1 - A+  (Nick Bosa's )

1.2 OLB 1 - A (Josh Allen)

 

now the Jets are at 1.3 the choices are 

DT 1 - A+ (Q Williams)

DT 2 - A+ (E Oliver)

DE 1 - A- (R Gary) 

DE 2 - A- (C Ferrell) 

and what? ILB 1 - A? (Devin White) 

WR 1 - B (DK Metcalf? K'Neal Harry?) 

OT 1 - B-/C+ (Jonah Williams with short arms?)  

whoever CB 1 is Greedy??? (B at best) 

there is no WR or OL worth the 3 pick, something like the top 7 prospects in this draft are defenders 

if no QB goes 1.1 they are looking at this scenario 

It’s a  nightmare scenario, thankfully one that has a small to no chance of taking place. I don’t care what dinner reports there are out there, the Cardinals are taking Murray. Unless something completely offputting happen in an interview,  you don’t hang out Rosen to dry like this. 

 And in the off chance that it does go like you suggested, then someone will come calling I believe. May not be a knockout offer but there will be one. Take it and nab Taylor Oliver Bradbury Harry - Whomever has a chance to start week one. That’s definitely not Williams since we already have two tackles playing end in a five technique. Oliver has an edge rusher? Maybe 

[Sperm Edwards]

2 hours ago, bitonti said:

it's a 2 part question 1) highly touted 2) high sparq

long story short  there hasn't been a "highly touted" DL prospect with Ed Oliver's sparq  DL score in the last 5 years 

on the DL Aaron Donald scored a 97.1 that worked out but the archive only goes back to 2014

widening the search beyond just the DL position, Saquon Barkley scored a 98.4 in 2018 and that worked out well. in 2017 Marshon Lattimore a 97.1 at CB. 

on the con side maybe CB Kevin King 99.2 and OL Kolton Miller also scored a 99.2 in 2018 but not sure if their scores pushed him up (wasn't "highly touted" during the season etc)  

it could be seen either way but in general a top notch prospect with a 99 sparq is rare and should not be dismissed quickly

It seems like it'd be a good tiebreaker (or as you put it, not to dismiss quickly) among guys who are otherwise similarly-ranked players. 

One I did look up yesterday (but in totally unusual fashion, my post was already too long) was 2015 because our edge rusher pick in round 3 was made right before another one that worked out just a bit better. Mauldin's was I think 14th percentile and Hunter's was in the 90s (or something like that). Not really surprising given their respective careers, but I think Hunter was even then touted as more of an upside-heavy prospect more than a guy who crushed it every year in college. Fast forward to the pros and now it's not uncommon for him to compile more sacks in a month with Minnesota than he accumulated in his full tenure at LSU; meanwhile Mauldin is out of the league. 

I've seen people go back & forth about formula-based scores like this & was just curious if there's a tangible correlation or if it's confirmation bias, where people point out these examples only when they it shows - or "proves" - what they want (not unlike me in the prior paragraph). 

I wouldn't compare top prospects to much lower ranked ones based on it, but it seems it's probably useful comparing similarly ranked players, whether way up top or all the way down to the lower rounds, choosing one among a handful of project types. 

[Miss Lonelyhearts]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

It seems like it'd be a good tiebreaker (or as you put it, not to dismiss quickly) among guys who are otherwise similarly-ranked players. 

One I did look up yesterday (but in totally unusual fashion, my post was already too long) was 2015 because our edge rusher pick in round 3 was made right before another one that worked out just a bit better. Mauldin's was I think 14th percentile and Hunter's was in the 90s (or something like that). Not really surprising given their respective careers, but I think Hunter was even then touted as more of an upside-heavy prospect more than a guy who crushed it every year in college. Fast forward to the pros and now it's not uncommon for him to compile more sacks in a month with Minnesota than he accumulated in his full tenure at LSU; meanwhile Mauldin is out of the league. 

I've seen people go back & forth about formula-based scores like this & was just curious if there's a tangible correlation or if it's confirmation bias, where people point out these examples only when they it shows - or "proves" - what they want (not unlike me in the prior paragraph). 

I wouldn't compare top prospects to much lower ranked ones based on it, but it seems it's probably useful comparing similarly ranked players, whether way up top or all the way down to the lower rounds, choosing one among a handful of project types. 

Wait. So you mean to tell me that using it in a vacuum as the sole criteria for making binary decisions with ill-defined outcomes isn't the optimal use of this or any other information? Oh my god. My mind is blown. It's like you just invented the entire concept of critical thought.

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, Miss Lonelyhearts said:

Wait. So you mean to tell me that using it in a vacuum as the sole criteria for making binary decisions with ill-defined outcomes isn't the optimal use of this or any other information? Oh my god. My mind is blown. It's like you just invented the entire concept of critical thought.

Did I inadvertently pee in your eye recently? 

[choon328]

4 hours ago, bitonti said:

news broke this weekend that Cardinals reportedly meeting with Nick Bosa and he's the lead dog at 1.1 

https://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/nfl/cardinals/2019/04/01/nick-bosa-arizona-cardinals-2019-nfl-draft-speculation-rumors-news/3331419002/ 

Assume the SF take one of Allen or Williams (and Bosa is #1 on their board too) the Jets have to take the best available player (Williams or Oliver, if that's their grade)

No one knows what will happen but Bosa going 1 and no QBs taken by 1.3 has always been a realistic scenario 

again, if no DT< the question is what's the pick at 1.3? rashan Gary? 

The Cardinals will meet with all 3 of them plus other top picks. They have 30 official visits to plan. I wouldn't read anything into any player meeting with any team. There are many times when a team doesn't meet with a player and they still draft him.

[choon328]

I personally would rather draft a guy 6-8 places higher than expected rather then take a DT at 3. There are many players who don't get drafted in the top 5 that are Hall of Famers. There are also many examples of Hall of Fame scouting reports on rookies who never live up to that billing.