Time Kibitzer

Members
  • Content count

    6,376
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

105 Excellent

About Time Kibitzer

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Parts Unknown

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Seattle Seahawks
  1. Doesn't matter what he runs at the combine imo, dude literally has highlight after highlight of him running away from defenders, he's damn fast with the pads on and that's all that matters imo. But I agree, if I had to guess he'll run sub 4.5, but the draftnik community has been slow to warm to Coleman so they're probably just slow to pay attention to his 40 time as well.
  2. That just depends. I don't regret drafting Luck in all my devy leagues after his RS freshman season, when his stats didn't necessarily warrant the selection. That's a best case scenario though. Once or twice per decade. Most picks aren't going to work out that well. In shallow one round dev leagues, I almost always spend my picks on a RB or WR. These positions are mainly about physical talent. If a guy has NFL caliber physical traits and all of the basic position-specific skills, he's probably going to end up being a pretty good prospect. Physical ability is important for QBs, but probably not to the same extent. I think NFL success is more about the mental skills and intangibles, which are hard to gather from a stat sheet. I didn't watch many of Hack's complete games last season, but I was definitely intrigued based on his 5* reputation out of high school and his early statistical success. I haven't watched any games of his this year and have no opinion on why he's regressing. One thing I will say is that he's not a Luck level athlete. Doesn't have anywhere near the mobility and evasiveness. He seems to be shaded more towards Bradford or Foles. Pure pocket guy. That could make him easier to defend, but doesn't really explain why he isn't dominating in college. I sort of buy the OL excuse because that's an important variable, but at the end of the day I always expect an NFL caliber QB to carve up college defenses. It's shooting fish in a barrel for players with that kind of ability, even if their OL is shoddy. So for me I'd be pretty worried about Hackenberg's consistent struggles this year. It doesn't mean he can't bounce back, but it throws up a big red flag. I'm pretty sure I've written my thoughts on this subject on these forums before, but I think the stat sheet is arguably more important for QBs than any other position. Having great college stats definitely isn't a guarantee of future success in the NFL, but I see it as basically a minimum requirement; much moreso than for RBs, WRs, and TEs. Almost all QBs drafted in the early rounds who had a poor CMP% and/or a poor YPA in college ended up disappointing in the NFL. Boller, Freeman, Gabbert, Ponder, Locker, Glennon, and Logan Thomas from this past draft are some names that come to mind at the moment. If Hackenberg has a 65% CMP%, 9.0 YPA, 3.0 TD/INT ratio next season I'll change my tune immediately, but at the moment despite his 'success' last year his stat sheet suggests NFL success is far from an inevitably for him, which is the same thing I was saying about him at the end of last season when he was being hyped as the inevitable #1 pick when he declares. Hackenberg doesn't look much different statistically than these two guys I've compared him to. Can you tell which one he is? These numbers are after their Sophomore seasons. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3V0yJsCAAACMPD.jpg One of them went #1 overall and the other went #11. I'd guess he's the one with the ####ty stats but all of them have ####ty stats.
  3. That just depends. I don't regret drafting Luck in all my devy leagues after his RS freshman season, when his stats didn't necessarily warrant the selection. That's a best case scenario though. Once or twice per decade. Most picks aren't going to work out that well. In shallow one round dev leagues, I almost always spend my picks on a RB or WR. These positions are mainly about physical talent. If a guy has NFL caliber physical traits and all of the basic position-specific skills, he's probably going to end up being a pretty good prospect. Physical ability is important for QBs, but probably not to the same extent. I think NFL success is more about the mental skills and intangibles, which are hard to gather from a stat sheet. I didn't watch many of Hack's complete games last season, but I was definitely intrigued based on his 5* reputation out of high school and his early statistical success. I haven't watched any games of his this year and have no opinion on why he's regressing. One thing I will say is that he's not a Luck level athlete. Doesn't have anywhere near the mobility and evasiveness. He seems to be shaded more towards Bradford or Foles. Pure pocket guy. That could make him easier to defend, but doesn't really explain why he isn't dominating in college. I sort of buy the OL excuse because that's an important variable, but at the end of the day I always expect an NFL caliber QB to carve up college defenses. It's shooting fish in a barrel for players with that kind of ability, even if their OL is shoddy. So for me I'd be pretty worried about Hackenberg's consistent struggles this year. It doesn't mean he can't bounce back, but it throws up a big red flag. I'm pretty sure I've written my thoughts on this subject on these forums before, but I think the stat sheet is arguably more important for QBs than any other position. Having great college stats definitely isn't a guarantee of future success in the NFL, but I see it as basically a minimum requirement; much moreso than for RBs, WRs, and TEs. Almost all QBs drafted in the early rounds who had a poor CMP% and/or a poor YPA in college ended up disappointing in the NFL. Boller, Freeman, Gabbert, Ponder, Locker, Glennon, and Logan Thomas from this past draft are some names that come to mind at the moment. If Hackenberg has a 65% CMP%, 9.0 YPA, 3.0 TD/INT ratio next season I'll change my tune immediately, but at the moment despite his 'success' last year his stat sheet suggests NFL success is far from an inevitably for him, which is the same thing I was saying about him at the end of last season when he was being hyped as the inevitable #1 pick when he declares.
  4. That's a lot less true these days than just several years ago. And usually it takes more than statistical mediocrity to get as much hype as he's had, even for a true freshman. Here are the last 19 first round QBs and their true freshman performance. Bortles - Redshirted. Manziel - Redshirted. Bridgewater - 64.5%, 7.2 YPA, 1.17 TD : INT Manuel - 65.1%, 7.7 YPA, 0.33 TD : INT Luck - Redshirted. RGIII - 59.9%, 7.8 YPA, 5.00 TD : INT Tannehill - Redshirted. Weeden - Redshirted. Newton - Played sparingly (12 pass attempts in first two seasons). Locker - 47.3%, 6.3 YPA, 0.93 TD : INT Gabbert - Played sparingly (13 pass attempts as a freshman). Ponder - Played sparingly (18 pass attempts as a freshman). Bradford - Redshirted. Tebow - Played sparingly (33 pass attempts as a freshman). Stafford - 52.7%, 6.8 YPA, 0.54 TD : INT Sanchez - Redshirted. Freeman - 51.9%, 6.6 YPA, 0.4 TD : INT Ryan - Redshirted. Flacco - Played sparingly (4 pass attempts as a freshman). So among all the recent elite QB prospects: - 68.4% either redshirted or played sparingly in their first year out of high school. - Of the few who received extensive playing time, the averages were: 56.9% completions, 7.1 YPA, 1.40 TD : INT (completely skewed by RG III's outlier). All that being the case, there's a very strong argument that Hackenberg's true freshman season of 58.9% completions, 7.5 YPA, and 2.00 TD : INT was actually far ahead of the performance curve even compared with eventual elite prospects at the position. Most first round QBs did not even play significant minutes as true freshmen. Of those who did, only RGIII had arguably better numbers than Hackenberg, and he did that as a dual threat on 267 pass attempts whereas Hackenberg had 392 pass attempts and presented no running threat. So there's absolutely nothing wrong with Hackenberg being hyped after a year like that. In fact, he absolutely SHOULD have been hyped after a year like that. What's happened since then is a different story... Guess I was wrong, I didn't realize all those guys' freshman seasons were following redshirt seasons. Still, I think it's ill-advised to treat a QB as an elite prospect before they put up an elite statistical season.
  5. That's a lot less true these days than just several years ago. And usually it takes more than statistical mediocrity to get as much hype as he's had, even for a true freshman.
  6. Eh, not sure I completely agree with Rotoworld there on Hackenberg. The OLine is definately the main issue. They were absolutely terrible for most of the season. Hack has some mobility but he's really a pocket QB and with no pocket and no running game due to terrible blocking, he got killed. Now, the last couple of games were against lesser defenses and the line got an injured Sr OG back and looked better. The running game was better as well. But Hackenberg still played a bit afraid and didn't stride into throws or trust his reads. Next year there will be more bodies and everyone will be more experienced, so I expect him to have a better year. But he still doesn't fit Franklin's offense very well. So the question is whether NFL teams think they can get him back to where he was last year, as an outstanding pro style QB, or whether he has been David Carr level ruined from all the abuse this season. He wasn't great last year either imo, definitely overrated. 59% CMP%, 7.54 YPA, 2/1 TD/INT ratio, those numbers certainly didn't scream NFL prospect.
  7. It doesn't seem like she has a problem with straw men arguments at all, actually.
  8. Yeah no kidding, so much for stats. I mean, what kind of assistant GM allows this kind of embarrassing performance to happen just 4 months after being hired. was a rip on the Leafs, not the hire. don't worry, your calculator is safe! Though to be honest I hope the Leafs continue to fail as miserably as possible
  9. Yeah no kidding, so much for stats. I mean, what kind of assistant GM allows this kind of embarrassing performance to happen just 4 months after being hired.
  10. yes. I guess to me that's different- pro teams are there for one purpose... to entertain. go ahead and pick your pro team. colleges? kinda have other m.o.s. No it doesn't. only point of college is college football? explain... Pretty much. The players aren't representative of the students at these schools, they're brought to these schools to play football and that's it; at least that's the case for 90+% of schools. It exists for entertainment for the student bodies and for the schools to make money. Of course they're representative. The schools are no more concerned that the average student graduate than they are the athletes graduate. If anything, they are more concerned about players dropping out than they are other students because they have money and time invested in them. Athlete or student, there is another class next year. The LSU football team's most recent Graduation Success Rate was 71%. The GSR tracks freshmen who enroll as full time students over a 6 year period. LSU's GSR for all students was 69%. GSR is basically irrelevant given the classes/majors these athletes have a high tendency of taking. Sure, because other students aren't taking these same courses or getting the same degrees. At the same levels that the student athletes on football teams are? No not even close.
  11. yes. I guess to me that's different- pro teams are there for one purpose... to entertain. go ahead and pick your pro team. colleges? kinda have other m.o.s. No it doesn't. yes. I guess to me that's different- pro teams are there for one purpose... to entertain. go ahead and pick your pro team. colleges? kinda have other m.o.s. No it doesn't. only point of college is college football? explain... Pretty much. The players aren't representative of the students at these schools, they're brought to these schools to play football and that's it; at least that's the case for 90+% of schools. It exists for entertainment for the student bodies and for the schools to make money. that's not at all your point- is it? seems like you're saying the only point of college football is to make money and entertain, and college football players will focus primarily on the football. but that's only the football teams... take the teams away, and you've still got a massive majority of kids going to college, perhaps with a little less autumn entertainment. A large number of these kids wouldn't even be able to get into these universities were it not for special admission programs provided for athletes by most of these schools.
  12. yes. I guess to me that's different- pro teams are there for one purpose... to entertain. go ahead and pick your pro team. colleges? kinda have other m.o.s. No it doesn't. yes. I guess to me that's different- pro teams are there for one purpose... to entertain. go ahead and pick your pro team. colleges? kinda have other m.o.s. No it doesn't. only point of college is college football? explain... Pretty much. The players aren't representative of the students at these schools, they're brought to these schools to play football and that's it; at least that's the case for 90+% of schools. It exists for entertainment for the student bodies and for the schools to make money. Of course they're representative. The schools are no more concerned that the average student graduate than they are the athletes graduate. If anything, they are more concerned about players dropping out than they are other students because they have money and time invested in them. Athlete or student, there is another class next year. The LSU football team's most recent Graduation Success Rate was 71%. The GSR tracks freshmen who enroll as full time students over a 6 year period. LSU's GSR for all students was 69%. GSR is basically irrelevant given the classes/majors these athletes have a high tendency of taking. And of course schools care way more about their football players than their normal students, they make the school money and bring the school bragging rights that some common student has no hope of bringing to the school.
  13. yes. I guess to me that's different- pro teams are there for one purpose... to entertain. go ahead and pick your pro team. colleges? kinda have other m.o.s. No it doesn't. yes. I guess to me that's different- pro teams are there for one purpose... to entertain. go ahead and pick your pro team. colleges? kinda have other m.o.s. No it doesn't. only point of college is college football? explain... Pretty much. The players aren't representative of the students at these schools, they're brought to these schools to play football and that's it; at least that's the case for 90+% of schools. It exists for entertainment for the student bodies and for the schools to make money.
  14. yes. I guess to me that's different- pro teams are there for one purpose... to entertain. go ahead and pick your pro team. colleges? kinda have other m.o.s. No it doesn't.
  15. Nah. They'll have to fight to make the playoffs imo. Still, just 18 games in under a new coach, there's more reason for optimism than I was expecting.