It's a good landing spot. Draft him where you can brother.What about Indy? Maybe better.
I'd 100% disagree with that. Hilton looked as good as ever last year.Luck will find a way to get him the ball and do it often. Hilton's days are becoming numbered. Parris in Indy is looking like arguably the best opportunity of any rookie WR. I'm buying in the 1st,
Right. He is on board for 2 more seasons, then will be UFA at age 31. He could still get a huge contract offer in free agency if they don't or can't re-sign him. So it could take awhile for Campbell to get #1 targets (if he ever can).I'd 100% disagree with that. Hilton looked as good as ever last year.
Switched to WR from RB at some point during college, freshman year maybe.Was his late breakout age due to lack of opportunity, lack of talent, bad QB, or nobody knows for sure?
QBWas his late breakout age due to lack of opportunity, lack of talent, bad QB, or nobody knows for sure?
I was expecting him to come in as a project without getting anything fantasy useful out of him for a few years. Colts will give him some value while he continues to learn how to play receiver. I agree with you, Indy is among the best possible situations.I wrote up a pretty big post on him with the bottom line that he needed a good systems with a creative-minded offensive guy running it - was hoping Reid/Payton/Nagy level, but Reich is the next gen of that model. This moves Campbell up a lot in my rankings.
Wasn't his ADOT like 3 yards? Everything I read about this guy says he has a super limited route tree and will need a lot of polish. The comp is either Tavon Austin or Percy Harvin at this point in time, depending on how successful you think he'll be.Not even close to a comparison. Parris can run routes for one a lot better than Austin ever did. I will give you the speed is similar. Austin actually is better in suddenness and cutting. Campbell plays bigger and most definitely a better blocker. I think the Ohio State offense is more role focused but does not mean our players cannot translate to the NFL.
It sounds like the Colts coaching staff is wasting no time putting in the work on accelerating Campbell’s development with regards to his route running.» Parris Campbell? Yeah, he’s fast, but he can also get open in other ways: Campbell and his 4.31 speed was as advertised in the first two days of rookie minicamp practices, but one of his biggest question marks coming out of college was how the team would develop him in areas outside of the slot, which is where he primarily lined up while at Ohio State. The Colts’ coaches wasted no time getting going on that during on-field work starting on Friday, as Campbell would be lined up all over the formation time and time again — and, most importantly, he was finding ways to get open and make plays. “I think the question kind of coming out was, ‘Can he run routes?’” Campbell told reporters Friday. “Since I had never done it, everyone just kind of put a no on it. But I mean I’m not going to lie to you, it is something that I needed to work on just because I didn’t have experience. So that was kind of my main focus throughout that whole process. Then having a guy like Coach (Brian) Hartline at Ohio State, who is a technician, was great for me and great for my teammates. So just going in that was kind of my main focus.”
Agreed. The only thing close is the 40 time. Tavon is 4 inches shorter and Campbell outperformed him on the broad jump and vertical which both are measures of explosive ability.Not even close to a comparison. Parris can run routes for one a lot better than Austin ever did. I will give you the speed is similar. Austin actually is better in suddenness and cutting. Campbell plays bigger and most definitely a better blocker. I think the Ohio State offense is more role focused but does not mean our players cannot translate to the NFL.
I would hope so.Evan SilvaVerified account @evansilva 3h3 hours ago
Parris Campbell "looked like the best player on the field" on day one of #Colts rookie camp, and his "speed was obvious."
------------------------------------
First look: Five observations from Colts rookie minicamp
Unfortunately, I think you will regret that. Unless you're happy with wr3 upside. And its very possible that's all Deebo is too and it's a washI took him over Deebo in almost every rookie draft. Just seems like the perfect QB and offense for him
One you might not want bumped in 3 years.Unfortunately, I think you will regret that. Unless you're happy with wr3 upside. And its very possible that's all Deebo is too and it's a wash
I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, but to avoid repeating myself it would be a statistical outlier if he were to become a wr2 and an even bigger anomaly if he was a wr1 based on his DR and BA. I have no problem coming in here 3 years from now and admitting hes one of the rare exceptions and great for all of you taking such a big risk! I dont think I will be though. Stats are heavily on my side.One you might not want bumped in 3 years.
According to Kevin Bowen of 1070 The Fan, Colts second-round WR Parris Campbell "should be in the mix" for No. 3 receiver duties in Indianapolis this year.
The Colts' receiving depth chart remains unsettled behind locked-in starters T.Y. Hilton and Devin Funchess. Campbell enters training camp with a chance to carve out a role as Indy's third receiver, though with Hilton and Funchess in front of him along with tight ends Eric Ebron and Jack Doyle, the former Buckeye could struggle for consistent targets in a suddenly dense Colts receiving corps.
SOURCE: 1070 The Fan
Jun 16, 2019, 12:30 PM ET
I understand what the numbers say, for sure.But there are a lot of wrs who overcame these short comings to still produce. I'm not saying it's something to completely disregard, but the facts are the facts.
Hopkins broke out as a freshman with Kyle Parker throwing him the ball...
The cream will always rise to the top.
The hang up I have is how much more productive Curtis Samuel was in similar circumstances. My understanding is they wanted to give that role to Campbell, but ended up disbursing it amongst several different players because Parris wasnt up for it. The statistical breakout didnt happen until he got Hawkins, more Ryan Day, and less Urban. And there's legitimate reason to believe that breakout was more scheme than skill. He's in as good of a situation as he could have gotten, but I still question the ceiling.I think one thing to keep in mind when discussing if he can be an outlier in regards to his DR and BA...look at his QB for his college career before Haskins took over. Even Michael Thomas, besides being fundamentally sound, had questions about his upside due to that offense and the trigger man.
He's a freak athlete paired for his career with Andrew Luck. That has to count for something as well.
Hes done a great job. One thing many of us, myself included, need reminders about is that what the NFL values doesnt directly translate to fantasy. Campbell may provide them a gadget player to fill a specific need. They may not have drafted him ever thinking he would be anything more than a slot guy with a specific role.I understand what the numbers say, for sure.
I also trust Chris Ballard and the roster he's putting together, and that they think Campbell is a good fit for Reich. He's got athleticism, situation, pedigree, and from me at least the benefit of the doubt given to the FO that drafted him. Those are all factors we each weight differently of course.
This. Reading this thread you'd think Campbell is a future stud. The excuses are the surrounding talent due to the prestige of the program, the qb was no good until Haskins, the play calling. Yet Samuel was able to do quite well with regards to his BA and DR, without Haskins. I imagine no one here thinks Samuel will be a stud (although I do see him as having a better career than Campbell).The hang up I have is how much more productive Curtis Samuel was in similar circumstances.
Exactly. Could be a swing and miss but almost every player is that. When you get the chance to draft a future #1 with a top 5 -10 QB, you have to take that chance. As much as I want Metcalf, this offense is more explosive, he's in a dome and out of 8 division games, only plays the Titans in Tennessee in potentially bad weather. Funchess is no threat.John Paul said:I've taken my shot with Campbell in dyno. In two years Hilton will be 31, turning 32 during the season. Luck the same. I want Luck's possible new #1.
This. And I think we also can't dismiss that Samuel may still break out this year. There has been a lot of buzz about him this offseason. Maybe both players were held back to a degree by their college system but both could very well have the skill sets to succeed in the NFL. You can't teach speed and short area burst and that sure helps.John Paul said:I've taken my shot with Campbell in dyno. In two years Hilton will be 31, turning 32 during the season. Luck the same. I want Luck's possible new #1.
Samuel wasn't held back by anything - he turned 171 touches into 1,636 yards and 15 TD's in one season. He lined up all over the field and was utilized accordingly. Samuel's slower developmental curve into the NFL was because the Panthers drafted him with the intentions on utilizing him differently than in college - they saw him as a wide receiver first that could also be lethal near the LoS. Then all that was further delayed because of ankle issues bridging both seasons.This. And I think we also can't dismiss that Samuel may still break out this year. There has been a lot of buzz about him this offseason. Maybe both players were held back to a degree by their college system but both could very well have the skill sets to succeed in the NFL. You can't teach speed and short area burst and that sure helps.
I was admittedly very dismissive of Campbell pre-draft. Him being drafted where he was and by this particular team left my second guessing my original impression. I now understand where some may believe that he can develop into something special. I can't reconcile the bolded though. His college team had a template in place for him and decided he couldn't do it. The story ends there. If he develops into an alpha then it's due to player development and his own attention to detail at this level. He has the traits to do it, but quite simply has done nothing on the field to suggest he will. So, add it to the range of potential outcomes, but it's nowhere near an expectation.Dr. Dan said:This. Reading this thread you'd think Campbell is a future stud. The excuses are the surrounding talent due to the prestige of the program, the qb was no good until Haskins, the play calling. Yet Samuel was able to do quite well with regards to his BA and DR, without Haskins. I imagine no one here thinks Samuel will be a stud (although I do see him as having a better career than Campbell).
Exactly. I dont understand some of the words (and agreement with those words) in this thread where people think he can be a future #1 in Indy. Nothing in his history shows he can be that. If he does, that's off to him because he will have.completely changed his spots, which is unusual.I was admittedly very dismissive of Campbell pre-draft. Him being drafted where he was and by this particular team left my second guessing my original impression. I now understand where some may believe that he can develop into something special. I can't reconcile the bolded though. His college team had a template in place for him and decided he couldn't do it. The story ends there. If he develops into an alpha then it's due to player development and his own attention to detail at this level. He has the traits to do it, but quite simply has done nothing on the field to suggest he will. So, add it to the range of potential outcomes, but it's nowhere near an expectation.
It's really not hard to understand. Campbell switched to WR from RB during college. Without enough time to learn everything about playing receiver, he instead trained for a specific role in the offense, doing pretty well putting up a lot of big plays. Everything about Parris is a projection of his god given talents, that given enough time as a professional athlete he can learn the technical side of playing receiver.Exactly. I dont understand some of the words (and agreement with those words) in this thread where people think he can be a future #1 in Indy. Nothing in his history shows he can be that. If he does, that's off to him because he will have.completely changed his spots, which is unusual.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that happen 4 years ago? I think position switches late in one's college career or in the case of Samuel after are items to make note of. But that long ago? Nah. I think their plan A in 2017 was to give him the whole Samuel role, but it wasn't working so they scaled back his workload as the season progressed. Then they plotted out a specific role for him in 2018 and more efficient results yielded.It's really not hard to understand. Campbell switched to WR from RB during college. Without enough time to learn everything about playing receiver, he instead trained for a specific role in the offense, doing pretty well putting up a lot of big plays. Everything about Parris is a projection of his god given talents, that given enough time as a professional athlete he can learn the technical side of playing receiver.
What I don't understand: your idea of a 2nd round project having only wr3 upside. Dude didn't put up a great season in his 2 years playing/learning wide receiver, how does that mean he can never do it? I mean, I could see you saying he's a risky pick. That makes perfect sense even.
It’s not like this has never happened before in the history of the NFL draft… I’m more surprised of your certainty that he has massive upside due to the fact that he is a 2nd round WR, when history would suggest I’m closer to being correct than you are, not only because of BA and DR but just the history of the 2nd round for WRs (way more misses than hits on this list)What I don't understand: your idea of a 2nd round project having only wr3 upside
So how many of the receivers drafted in the 2nd round meet the criteria in the first place?Arguments against: BA and DR in my wr1 miss detector thread, Campbell would be a miss for wr1 and wr2. Also between 2009 and 2016 only 31% of wrs selected round 2 can probably be considered hits. Of those hits only 1 WR had a BA and DR as an exception to the rule.
breakout age and Dominator rating. If you havent seen my wr1 miss predictor thread I'd encourage you to search for itBA/DR?
I could certainly search that, but it's irrelevant. The criteria dosen't predict hits. it predicts likely misses.So how many of the receivers drafted in the 2nd round meet the criteria in the 1st place?
So how many of the receivers drafted in the 2nd round meet the criteria in the first place?
Selection BiasI could certainly search that, but it's irrelevant.
Yeah, I don't know. I remember reading he switched to wr freshman-sophomore year, but now I can't find anything. We'll go with you.Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that happen 4 years ago? I think position switches late in one's college career or in the case of Samuel after are items to make note of. But that long ago? Nah. I think their plan A in 2017 was to give him the whole Samuel role, but it wasn't working so they scaled back his workload as the season progressed. Then they plotted out a specific role for him in 2018 and more efficient results yielded.
Hit% + Miss% = 100%I feel like I've explained this 300 times, and the people who dont understand that predicting a miss does not inversely predict hits are never going to understand.
No. you dont understand scientific research or statistics. this isnt grade school math as you have referenced. if a study shows something is great at ruling something out, it doesnt mean the reverse is good at ruling something in. you are 100% incorrect in your thinking on this and I would encourage you to read up the difference between sensitivity and specificity. The method I referenced has a high sensitivity- it rules people out.Hit% + Miss% = 100%
This equation is quite literally true. So yes, they are inversely related. Some algebra work reveals that Miss% = 1 - Hit%
So your little scientific study, so you say it has high sensitivity. Specifically what is the value of its sensitivity?No. you dont understand scientific research or statistics. this isnt grade school math as you have referenced. if a study shows something is great at ruling something out, it doesnt mean the reverse is good at ruling something in. you are 100% incorrect in your thinking on this and I would encourage you to read up the difference between sensitivity and specificity. The method I referenced has a high sensitivity- it rules people out.
MRIs are a great example: If something shows up on an MRI you have a 96ish% chance of having that problem. However, if your MRI comes back normal you have about a 25% chance of having no structural problems
I've explained this enough if you dont get it by now you never will, but I would encourage you to read up on those differences.
Sensitivity rules out. So it shows who is most likely to not be a fantasy wr1 or even wr2.So your little scientific study, so you say it has high sensitivity. Specifically what is the value of its sensitivity?