Can't imagine guys getting all hung up on things like height, weight, speed, and prowess when it comes to performance...all those things make us the blind fool. Just tell us that an erratic dart thrower hit a twenty and therefore all things are certain.
That's better.
Aren't you the guy who traded out of the 1.01 to take Ruggs? Too early to reach a verdict on that one, but I don't like your odds and I'm a Ruggs owner in 1 league and a Clyde owner in 0. The gymnastics some people will perform to convince themselves that they didn't make a mistake would put Simone Biles to shame.
The thing about the anti-Clyde crowd is that they pick and choose which measurables count and which don't. We discussed all this in the thread about Clyde. His absolute weight/speed don't look special on paper, but on the other hand he has an extremely high weight for his low height and his college metrics show solid big play capability, so there's some conflicting data. Ultimately, it may come down to which data you value most. Some people obviously latch onto the raw weight and 40 time. However, he comes out looking a lot better if you consider stuff like BMI and big play %. His production doesn't suggest plodder at all, which is a big departure from past eye sore 40 types like David Montgomery and David Cobb. To paint it like
all the numbers are for him would be misleading, but it would be equally misleading to suggest that "things like height, weight, speed, and prowess" all work against him. Simply not the case. Production, broad jump, and vertical all suggest above average burst.
For me he passes the eyeball test and he got a vote of confidence from the same Super Bowl-winning organization that unearthed Mahomes, Kelce, and Hill. Reid's specific track record of identifying RB talent is very strong. The sum of all that stuff is a lot more meaningful to me than his 40 time being off by .05 seconds.
