Mickey Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 "Lots of very good football players go undrafted" That's true. However, very few of them were four year ALL Conference players who were at the Senior Bowl, and that is the point. The NFL can miss someone like Gates who did not play any college ball. To claim the NFL missed out on Nance is pathetic given the facts. How many of them pulled hammy's on their pro day? By the way, the NFL hasn't missed out on Nance, didn't you notice that he is on an NFL roster? Seems like the NFL was very much aware of him. I am not saying that his not being drafted wasn't warranted, it may very well have been, only that it doesn't mean there is no way the guy can play because of it. That seems to be your position, that a guy who was well known and then doesn't get drafted absolutely can't play and any one who sees potential in him is an idiot. "Pointing out that he has size and that such size can be a good thing for a WR to have is simply recognizing the obvious" Santana Moss and Derrick Mason are listening... So is Randy Moss and Larry Fitzgerald. Obviously, size is not the only attribute that can be of benefit for a receiver. No one, NO ONE, is saying that, why do you keep responding as if I have? I'll ask again so you can dodge the question one more time, is size something that can be of benefit to a WR?* *NOTE: This shouldn't be mininterpreted by you for the umpteenth time as a statement that size alone is all a WR needs to succeed. "It is why scouts pay a lot of attention to size "Which explains why none of the 32 NFL teams attending the Senior Bowl spent a pick on Nance... right? It does explain why he was invited to the combine and finds himself on an NFL roster doesn't it, or did the Bills sign him despite his size? "The point being made here is simply that Nance be given a fair shot at making the roster and that the early indications are that he is playing very well in the OTA's. Why does that make us all birdbrains so deserving of your obnoxious scorn?" That is a laughably dishonest way to spin how this debate has unfolded. The "scorn" I received has been because none of you featherheads has had the slightest answer to my points, but rather a non-stop parrot&lie&insult fest since. Let's try again... I said the kid drops balls, doesn't separate, and doesn't adjust to the ball. Those are my observations, as are the points about acceleration and turning in regards to ST play. Why is that wrong? If your answer is h+w+b+40=football skills and MAC stat parroting, I rest my case... Again, you are lumping me in with whatever scorn you feel was heaped on you by others, go back to your first post in response to me to see where this started. Your first post in this thread didn't mention anything about dropping balls or separation, just what you thought would hurt his ST's play. Then you went on a condescending sarcastic rant about "h+w+b+40=football skills" as the only relevant consideration of Nance's ability, which, wasn't what I had claimed. Here is what you said and if this is your idea of a "simple kind response" then your parents raised an even more ill-mannered lout than I thought: Ah, the 6'4" runs a 4.5 40 = football skills theory... Add in a few receiving stats from the MAC and get a bust ready for him in Canton... Oh, I know!!!! Nance is THREE INCHES TALLER!!! And TALL=GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! h+w+b+40 = football skils 708785[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 "Chad Johnson 6-1Larry Fitzgerald 6-3 Anquan Boldin 6-1 Plaxico Burress 6-5 Eddie Kennison 6-1 Antonio Gates 6-5 Jimmy Smith 6-1 Antonio Bryant 6-2 Randy Moss 6-4 Houshmandzazdeh 6-1 Jerry Porter 6-2" Only four of those you listed are 6'3" or taller, and Gates is a TE. 6'1" is George Wilson's height. And the whole point of pimping Nance over Wilson is to get those precious extra three inches that make all the difference in the universe to you. Stretching the definition of a "tall WR" down to 6'1" is stoopin quite low. WRs have other things besides h+w+b+40 that determines their success, but those things, such as turning ability, separation, adjustment to the ball, hands etc. - whew, those get zero value from you. Try a few of these on for "size" Fred Gibson Reggie Williams JJ Stokes Bryant Johnson ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz............ 708840[/snapback] No one is pimping Nance over Wilson. A claim was made that given what we pay Price and Reed, Nance had no chance of ever unseating them. That is when I made my first post in this thread that if Nance outplays them, he should be on the roster and later I compared the stats and vitals of Nance, Reed and Price. Reed and Price are under 6'. I haven't mention Wilson once. You dismiss these guys as being "only" 6-1. Over 6 is considered tall for a reciever while 6' is probably the standard. Please point out in a prior post where I said that his height makes "all the difference" as opposed to it being one quality about him that I like. I'll ask the question again since we can see just how long you can dodge the question, is it your position that size is never an advantage for a WR? Put another way, are Randy Moss and Larry Fitzgerald good WR's despite their size? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 He certainly deserves a good look, not a kangaroo court. Late round or UDFA receivers do blossom. I'm not going to search hither and yon, but locally, 7th rounders Houshmandezeh and Kevin Walter (great ST'er - got a 6M FA contract from HOU) have been nice finds. I don't think there is much of a difference between a 7th pick and a UFDA - a little luck, a player who ends up on the right club for his kind of talent, etc. 708848[/snapback] How dare you suggest that Nance might be good? Where do you get off? Who do you think you are? You know nothing about football. Nothing, nothing, nothing. oops, sorry, I thought I was that LaDairis guy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDairis Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 "is size something that can be of benefit to a WR?" Specifically height is the most overrated of all the measurements. WRs must be great athletes, because they are covered by great athletes. Just being tall means JACK if the other stuff is not there, like being fast out of breaks, adjusting to and catching the ball etc. More often than not, height is given ridiculously high value vs. other skills. Yeah, on specific plays, height can help. Feel better? Now tell us about Reggie Williams, Fred Gibson, and JJ Stokes... "It does explain why he was invited to the combine and finds himself on an NFL roster doesn't it, or did the Bills sign him despite his size?" That there is an inaccurate "guru consensus" before each modern NFL Draft is a fact. It is a fact that Nance was highly rated by that "guru consensus." It is a fact that Nance was expected to get drafted by the "guru consensus," especially after getting invited by NFL Scouts to the most prestigious all star game - the Senior Bowl. It is a fact that Nance did not get Drafted, not even by the team with his college QB - Pittsburgh, with the final non-compensatory pick in Round 7. Undrafteds reach deep beyond the Draft pool. Most teams sign at least twice as many undrafteds as they have Draft picks. If the Draft was still extended, that puts Nance anywhere between Rounds 8-20... "Your first post in this thread didn't mention anything about dropping balls or separation" And yet I get accused of being repetitive... That was my first post about Nance in the Wilford topic about Nance... "Here is what you said and if this is your idea of a "simple kind response" then your parents raised an even more ill-mannered lout than I thought" Most would find that post humorous and factual. If that post bothers you, it is BECAUSE it mocks the complete and total void in your head about understanding football beyond just h+w+b+40 and basic stat parroting... which was then completely verified by your suggestion that Nance be an up guy on the KR team... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDairis Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 "Put another way, are Randy Moss and Larry Fitzgerald good WR's despite their size?" Both Moss and Fitz have exceptional ball skills: hands, adjustment etc. Fitz is more of a physical possession type who uses his body extremely well. Moss has great wheels and can, or could, separate against the best NFL corners. Nance has none of that, which is why Moss (despite big time character issues) and Fitz were high Firsts, while Nance went undrafted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Damn, Martin Nance is getting some major love here. I'll wait til training camp to see how he does to make any statements. However, there is one thing I'm certain of. Cut Josh Reed. Nothing personal but please get rid of him. Keep Wilson or Nance and eat the money. The guy has had so many chances and unfortunately it didn't work out here. It's time to give Parrish and some new guys the chance. Sorry Josh, nothing personal, but it's time to move on (and for the record he should have been cut on the spot for wearing one eye black). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 oops, sorry, I thought I was that LaDairis guy... 708889[/snapback] No, not unless you have one of those "What I Did This Summer" assignments due this fall... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 LaDaieris says it is a "stretch" to consider a 6-1 WR to be tall. What is "tall" for a WR? Lets see what they were saying about 6-1 WR's in the last two drafts: Chad Jackson: "He has good size for a receiver." Ethan Kilmer: "has the size, strength, quickness and playing speed to be a solid backup" and "uses his aggressiveness, size/strength" Ben Obumanu: "He is a tall receiver..." and "Obomano definitely has the size teams like in a receiver at nearly 6-1..." Delanie Walker: "well-built receiver with the size..." and "Walker is a big receiver..." And in 2005: Troy Williamson: "Tall, long-limbed athlete with a good frame..." Reggie Brown: "Uses his size well to get off the press..." and "Uses his size to compete..." Mark Bradley: "He has excellent size, he has a tall frame and is well built." 6-1 is tall for a WR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 "Put another way, are Randy Moss and Larry Fitzgerald good WR's despite their size?"Both Moss and Fitz have exceptional ball skills: hands, adjustment etc. Fitz is more of a physical possession type who uses his body extremely well. Moss has great wheels and can, or could, separate against the best NFL corners. Nance has none of that, which is why Moss (despite big time character issues) and Fitz were high Firsts, while Nance went undrafted. 708895[/snapback] Yes, they are all of those things. However, does not their size, in addition to those other attributes, contribute to them being the dangerous receivers they are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5 Wide Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 I'm going to go ahead and say that if he makes some plays in September and beyond, I don't care if he went to Southern Kentucky Central Culinary Institute and is a master at Brazilian Ju-Jitsu. If the guy proves he can play than that's all I need to know. If he can't, he'll be exposed when the pads go on and he'll be bagging groceries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 No, not unless you have one of those "What I Did This Summer" assignments due this fall... 708926[/snapback] Maybe we should take up a collection and buy him some new crayons so he can go back to whatever he was doing before he started posting here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Maybe we should take up a collection and buy him some new crayons so he can go back to whatever he was doing before he started posting here. 708959[/snapback] Take up a collection to help him with his summer assignment so he's prepared when he goes back to school in the fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDairis Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 "However, does not their size, in addition to those other attributes, contribute to them being the dangerous receivers they are?" Santana Moss and Derrick Mason get open because their small size allows them to turn quicker than those defending them. Size is relative and worthless as a measure without other factors. "Lets see what they were saying about 6-1 WR's in the last two drafts" Ah, the ol' PARROTING=PROOF standard.... As for what a quick search finds for average WR height, well, I found this.... http://www.nfl.com/draft/analysis/expert/brandt/cb "Of the 40 receivers at this year's Scouting Combine, the average height was 6-foot-1 1/8 and the average weight was 205 pounds." ... and so it can be truly said, that, for this year's WR crop at the Combine, that a height of 6010 would have been SHORTER THAN AVERAGE... You "Height Parrots" are a seriously dedicated lot. It must be that most of you are really short and hence have always had some emotional complex about being short... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt in KC Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 Hey, LaDarius, how do you think Nance got 81 catches last year? Luck? Skill? All QB placement? Did he "earn" any of those catches? I'm pretty sure you don't think it was his height.... I am not presuming to know anything at all (but would like to hear your opinion since you actually saw him play -- on TV, I assume?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDairis Posted June 15, 2006 Share Posted June 15, 2006 "Hey, LaDarius, how do you think Nance got 81 catches last year?" 1. He faced low caliber defenses 2. The "RedskinHawks" threw a lot 3. Robinson and others WRs were good enough to prevent defenses from paying too much attention to Nance 4. Very few MAC corners were really good at man coverage, and hence the RedskinHawk offense faced a lot of zone "I'm pretty sure you don't think it was his height" Yeah, height was the be-all-and-end-all reason why... How about this: why don't you think the Steelers, with former teammate Big Ben the star starting QB, thought enough of Nance to spend their 7th, pick 240, the last non-compensatory pick in the Draft, on him? Height? Yeah, that MUST be it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted June 15, 2006 Author Share Posted June 15, 2006 Good grief - some people really need to settle down. I'll try and respond to a few comments: 1) If Martin Nance pans out, then by definition, the NFL missed on him by not drafting him. If Nance turns into a good player at any point in his career - let alone as a rookie - a lot of NFL GM's will be wishing they could have the 6th or 7th round pick where they passed on him back. 2) I'm not 100% sure what Sam Aiken did on special teams last year, but given the Bills' #1 Special Teams for the last two years, whatever Sam Aiken did, he was probably doing it at a very high level. #1 over two years is simply amazing. 3) Even if the Bills keep 6 or 7 WR's on the roster, you only bring 45 players with you to the game, which means that the 6th WR in all likelihood, and without quesiton the 7th WR will be parked firmly on the inactive list. That's an important factor in coloring any expectations for Nance this year. If Nance is going to get onto the active list for gamedays - i.e. one of our Top 5 WR's, it is absolutely essential that he beat out Aiken, Wilson, and Smith on Special Teams play, because that is what a 5th WR does on Sundays. JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 "However, does not their size, in addition to those other attributes, contribute to them being the dangerous receivers they are?"Santana Moss and Derrick Mason get open because their small size allows them to turn quicker than those defending them. Size is relative and worthless as a measure without other factors. "Lets see what they were saying about 6-1 WR's in the last two drafts" Ah, the ol' PARROTING=PROOF standard.... As for what a quick search finds for average WR height, well, I found this.... http://www.nfl.com/draft/analysis/expert/brandt/cb "Of the 40 receivers at this year's Scouting Combine, the average height was 6-foot-1 1/8 and the average weight was 205 pounds." ... and so it can be truly said, that, for this year's WR crop at the Combine, that a height of 6010 would have been SHORTER THAN AVERAGE... You "Height Parrots" are a seriously dedicated lot. It must be that most of you are really short and hence have always had some emotional complex about being short... 709000[/snapback] Stop dancing around the question, I asked you whether the size of Randy Moss and Larry Fitzgerald contributes to them being the dangerous receivers they are. Your answer was that size was worthless as to Santana Moss and Derrick Mason. Wonderful answer if I had asked you about Santana Moss and Derrick Mason. Let me ask you yet again so that everyone can enjoy watching you dance some more: Does the exceptional size of Larry Fitzgerald and Randy Moss contribute to them being the dangerous receivers they are? Circle one: YES or NO ???????????? This is pretty entertaining. First you take the ridiculous position that size is never, ever, ever a factor in determining the quality of a WR not even a small factor, not even just one of many others. Then, even when it becomes obvious that you overstated the matter, your arrogance won't let you back off of it, not even an inch, thus you just have to dance and dance and look more and more ridiculous each round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Good grief - some people really need to settle down. I'll try and respond to a few comments: 1) If Martin Nance pans out, then by definition, the NFL missed on him by not drafting him. If Nance turns into a good player at any point in his career - let alone as a rookie - a lot of NFL GM's will be wishing they could have the 6th or 7th round pick where they passed on him back. 2) I'm not 100% sure what Sam Aiken did on special teams last year, but given the Bills' #1 Special Teams for the last two years, whatever Sam Aiken did, he was probably doing it at a very high level. #1 over two years is simply amazing. 3) Even if the Bills keep 6 or 7 WR's on the roster, you only bring 45 players with you to the game, which means that the 6th WR in all likelihood, and without quesiton the 7th WR will be parked firmly on the inactive list. That's an important factor in coloring any expectations for Nance this year. If Nance is going to get onto the active list for gamedays - i.e. one of our Top 5 WR's, it is absolutely essential that he beat out Aiken, Wilson, and Smith on Special Teams play, because that is what a 5th WR does on Sundays. JDG 709126[/snapback] Agreed, however, I would add that it is not an impossibility that Parrish, Reed or Price could get beat out of a job by Nance, Wilson, Aiken or Smith and if that happened, Nance or whoever would be a 3rd or 4th WR and woud be on the roster even if they can't play special teams. Wilson, Aiken and Smith have had opportunities aplenty to crack the 3rd or 4th WR position and haven't. Nance? We just don't know. Long shot? Absolutely but not impossible. For all we know, Nance may be more in competition for Price and Reed's job than Aiken's. That is why early on I compared some numbers for Price, Reed and Nance and didn't include Aiken. During the Tasker years, we saw a lot of movement on and off the roster at the #3 and #4 WR spot but none of it effected Tasker's roster spot. Maybe that is the deal with Aiken. I don't think he is Tasker material but maybe the Bills do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 I hope Nance makes the team and catches 100, or goes down in a blaze of glory, because either way nothing else will justify this much argument about him. Good lord, what if the internet was as sophisticated in the days of Al Edwards and Jeremy McDaniel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fixxxer Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 "Hey, LaDarius, how do you think Nance got 81 catches last year?" 1. He faced low caliber defenses 2. The "RedskinHawks" threw a lot 3. Robinson and others WRs were good enough to prevent defenses from paying too much attention to Nance 4. Very few MAC corners were really good at man coverage, and hence the RedskinHawk offense faced a lot of zone "I'm pretty sure you don't think it was his height" Yeah, height was the be-all-and-end-all reason why... How about this: why don't you think the Steelers, with former teammate Big Ben the star starting QB, thought enough of Nance to spend their 7th, pick 240, the last non-compensatory pick in the Draft, on him? Height? Yeah, that MUST be it... 709124[/snapback] IIRC I read some of Ratburger's comments about Nance and he said that he tried to convince Cowher and FO to draft him. I think those comments were made on Jim Kelly's golf tournament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts