Kelly the Dog Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 The difference between a 6th or 7th round draft choice and an UDFA who is immediately signed after the draft is nil. It may even extend to the 5th round. Teams will often draft guys, say a WR, who they know is less talented than a Martin Nance but has one outstanding trait like speed or returning ability whom they think (okay, wish) will develop into a player. But the talent difference between most or a great number of these players are non-existent. By that time in the draft, there are approximately 264 players of similar talents and 64 draft picks. It often may come down to something as random as which particular game the team's regional scout say him play in. If it was one of his better ones he moves up a team's board, a mediocre or bad one or one missed ball, he moves down. To me, to say a player is not NFL material because he wasn't drafted but was one of if not the most sought after UDFA is unrealistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDairis Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Poor little Mickey gets busted for claiming 6'1" is "tall" when, in fact, it was BELOW AVERAGE for WRs at the combine. Will you admit being TOTALLY WRONG about that? Nope - parrots never admit being wrong... "Stop dancing around the question" This is just pathetic. Your question was answered above. Your BIRDBRAIN just doesn't like the answer... When will you stop dancing around my question about Reggie Williams, JJ Stokes, and Fred Gibson? "mickey" is completely obsessed with size. Size is the only thing that makes Moss and Fitz great players. Now, why did size not make JJ Stokes, Fred Gibson, and Reggie Williams great players? DUH!! Why are Steve Smith, Santana Moss, and Derrick Mason three of the NFL's best WRs? A: it is impossible for them to be so, because they are short and all Mickey's BIRDBRAIN can comprehend about the WR position is height... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDairis Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 "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." Well, then, BAWKEDY BAWK BAWK BAWK BAWK BAWK PARROTING=PROOF Thanks for explaining why the Steelers not only passed on Nance with pick 240, the final non-compensatory pick in round 7, but also did not outbid the Bills for Nance as an undrafted. Maybe Nance didn't want to play with Big Ben - LOL. Maybe there is some parroting from a caddy that you can BAWK to "prove" it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fixxxer Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 "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."Well, then, BAWKEDY BAWK BAWK BAWK BAWK BAWK PARROTING=PROOF Thanks for explaining why the Steelers not only passed on Nance with pick 240, the final non-compensatory pick in round 7, but also did not outbid the Bills for Nance as an undrafted. Maybe Nance didn't want to play with Big Ben - LOL. Maybe there is some parroting from a caddy that you can BAWK to "prove" it... 709522[/snapback] Polly says: http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060610/1026825.asp "He's going to be very, very good," Roethlisberger said at Jim Kelly's charity golf tournament. "I told the people in our [steelers] office, "Mark my words, in five years he's going to be one of the best in the league.' I have that much confidence in him. I know he's got confidence in himself. I wish we had him, unfortunately." Roethlisberger is most impressed by Nance's reliable hands. "A lot of big guys when they go up for jump balls they go up and catch it with their body," Roethlisberger said. "He can jump and still grab it with his hands. He's a big guy with real soft hands. I think of a handful of times when I threw a bad ball and he went up and snagged it with one hand. He's very smooth. You know he's going to make plays for you." And buddy, count to ten, relax, you'll live longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRW Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Your BIRDBRAIN just doesn't like the answer... 709519[/snapback] A: it is impossible for them to be so, because they are short and all Mickey's BIRDBRAIN can comprehend about the WR position is height... 709519[/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."Well, then, BAWKEDY BAWK BAWK BAWK BAWK BAWK PARROTING=PROOF Thanks for explaining why the Steelers not only passed on Nance with pick 240, the final non-compensatory pick in round 7, but also did not outbid the Bills for Nance as an undrafted. Maybe Nance didn't want to play with Big Ben - LOL. Maybe there is some parroting from a caddy that you can BAWK to "prove" it... 709522[/snapback] Will you knock this crap off? You wonder why you're getting attacked, look at your replies above. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I am wondering why you're getting so worked up about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Average height of bottom 25 WR's from 2005: 5-11 Of the top 25? 6' Is height the only factor? Of course not. Is it a factor? Certainly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Average height of bottom 25 WR's from 2005: 5-11 Of the top 25? 6' Is height the only factor? Of course not. Is it a factor? Certainly. 709557[/snapback] An inch difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 An inch difference? 709569[/snapback] On average. The only point here is that height is a factor. Not the only factor. Ask Pete Metzalars if his height was a factor in his success. At the same time, Duper and Clayton did okay without it. All else being equal, who would you take, a 5-10 WR or a 6-2 WR? Remember, all other factors are totally equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 On average. The only point here is that height is a factor. Not the only factor. Ask Pete Metzalars if his height was a factor in his success. At the same time, Duper and Clayton did okay without it. All else being equal, who would you take, a 5-10 WR or a 6-2 WR? Remember, all other factors are totally equal. 709593[/snapback] I'm not sure. Assuming the smaller WR is worse, but you've seen him play once, then that means take him, because that is better than the 6'1 WR, who while he is more talented, you have only read about, so if you like him, you are just parroting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Poor little Mickey gets busted for claiming 6'1" is "tall" when, in fact, it was BELOW AVERAGE for WRs at the combine. Will you admit being TOTALLY WRONG about that? Nope - parrots never admit being wrong... "Stop dancing around the question" This is just pathetic. Your question was answered above. Your BIRDBRAIN just doesn't like the answer... When will you stop dancing around my question about Reggie Williams, JJ Stokes, and Fred Gibson? "mickey" is completely obsessed with size. Size is the only thing that makes Moss and Fitz great players. Now, why did size not make JJ Stokes, Fred Gibson, and Reggie Williams great players? DUH!! Why are Steve Smith, Santana Moss, and Derrick Mason three of the NFL's best WRs? A: it is impossible for them to be so, because they are short and all Mickey's BIRDBRAIN can comprehend about the WR position is height... 709519[/snapback] Unable to address the positions I have taken, now you are just making them up. My position: Height is a factor, not the only one, but certainly a factor. Your "interpretation" of my position: Mickey thinks size is the only factor. Your position: Height is never a factor, it is totally worthless and anyone who thinks so is an idiot. You are the only one here taking an extreme, absolute position, that height never matters. My question to to you: Is size a factor in making Randy Moss and Larry Fitzgerald as dangerous as they are? Your Answer: Santana Moss is good and short. And as for what passes for a "tall" receiver, you only looked at average height for the WR's invited to the combine. These are the best of the best hence I would expect, since height is a factor in helping WR's to succeed, to be taller than the average WR's out there. Do you have stats for the average WR size in all of Division 1 football? That would be the appropriate number to determine what the average size of a receiver is in college. The same for the pros. If I had said that 6-1 was tall for the WR's at the combine this year, I would have been wrong, but I didn't. Nice job disproving a position I didn't take. By the way, did you actually read the article you linked? Here is what it said: "Due to the increasing number of tall receivers in the NFL, height has become an important factor in drafting cornerbacks. 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. Thirteen receivers were 6-2 or taller." You do realize that the article you linked stands in complete opposition to the ridiculous point you don't have the guts to abandon, that height doesn't matter for WR's, don't you? Why do you think those WR's are getting taller? Could there possibly be a connection between performance at the position and height? Could NFL GM's increasingly be looking for tall WR's even though you, as the master of all football intellect, have deemed height to not matter at all? Thanks for finding that article for me as it demonstrates exactly the point that I was trying to make all along, that height can be a factor albeit not the only one in separating the good WR's from the bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDairis Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 "And buddy, count to ten, relax, you'll live longer" If you actually could count to ten, you might be able to answer the question as to why the Steelers would pass on such a "star" in the making, not just with the final non-compensatory pick in round 7, but also in UDFA... Ben: "Come on, coach, let's draft Martin" Cowher: "Shut up you moron. Go ride your bike without a helmet." YEAH, that must have been what happened... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDairis Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 "Average height of bottom 25 WR's from 2005: 5-11 Of the top 25? 6'" LMAO!!!! And just how was this calculated? Could it be that some slot WRs are smaller and do PR and KR as well? And such slots only see the field with 3 or more WR packages? OOoops - asking an invalid parrot a serious football question - not a good idea... What is truly funny is that the 6' figure is more than an inch less than the average height of WRs at the last combine. SHORTER = BETTER??? LMAO!!! "All things being equal" only occurs in the peabrain of PARROTING MORONS incapable of admitting being WRONG. You were WRONG about 6'1" being "tall." You cannot explain JJ Stokes, Reggie Williams, and Fred Gibson, not to mention Steve Smith, Santana Moss, and Derrick Mason. The ONLY thing your BEAKED BIRDBRAIN is capable of is insisting that height is the be-all-and-end-all "measure" of WRs, and this is because YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT FOOTBALL EXCEPT HOW TO PARROT SOMEONE's HEIGHT... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 "And buddy, count to ten, relax, you'll live longer" If you actually could count to ten, you might be able to answer the question as to why the Steelers would pass on such a "star" in the making, not just with the final non-compensatory pick in round 7, but also in UDFA... Ben: "Come on, coach, let's draft Martin" Cowher: "Shut up you moron. Go ride your bike without a helmet." YEAH, that must have been what happened... 709624[/snapback] I could name you a couple hundred or so other guys that the Steelers didn't draft, I guess they all must suck under this "Steelers didn't draft him" theory of yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 By the way, did you actually read the article you linked? Here is what it said: "Due to the increasing number of tall receivers in the NFL, height has become an important factor in drafting cornerbacks. 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. Thirteen receivers were 6-2 or taller." You do realize that the article you linked stands in complete opposition to the ridiculous point you don't have the guts to abandon, that height doesn't matter for WR's, don't you? Why do you think those WR's are getting taller? Could there possibly be a connection between performance at the position and height? Could NFL GM's increasingly be looking for tall WR's even though you, as the master of all football intellect, have deemed height to not matter at all? Thanks for finding that article for me as it demonstrates exactly the point that I was trying to make all along, that height can be a factor albeit not the only one in separating the good WR's from the bad. 709614[/snapback] Mickey, we all know how much of a douche this kid is, but notice how he linked to an article? Doesnt that make him a parrot by his own definition? I know its frustrating, but remember you are arguing with someone who has he mental capacity of a rotting squirrel carcass. I am refraining from calling LaDumbass retarded, because i dont want to insult mentally handicapped people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDairis Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 "You do realize that the article you linked stands in complete opposition to the ridiculous point you don't have the guts to abandon, that height doesn't matter for WR's, don't you?" No, rather, that article PROVES that you were WRONG about 6'1" being "Tall" for an NFL WR, and that you are way too much of a PARROTING little chicken@@@@ to admit that... NFL players at all positions have been getting larger over the years. So what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDairis Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 "I could name you a couple hundred or so other guys that the Steelers didn't draft, I guess they all must suck under this "Steelers didn't draft him" theory of yours." Yeah, and you did a great job selectively parroting that but not parroting Big Ben's comments playing golf, which is what that addressed. You lie, you get busted lying and being wrong, and you go right on BAWKING... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDairis Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Nice point, Ramius. Average height is the fact. The commentary is the parroting - the opinion of another that Mickey decided should be appropriated to form "his" "opinion." Parroting a fact is different from parroting an opinion, but you'd have to have at least a 40 IQ to comprehend that, which you don't... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Mickey, we all know how much of a douche this kid is, but notice how he linked to an article? Doesnt that make him a parrot by his own definition? I know its frustrating, but remember you are arguing with someone who has he mental capacity of a rotting squirrel carcass. I am refraining from calling LaDumbass retarded, because i dont want to insult mentally handicapped people. 709641[/snapback] So it's okay to insult rotting squirrel carcasses with such a comparison? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Nice point, Ramius. Average height is the fact. The commentary is the parroting - the opinion of another that Mickey decided should be appropriated to form "his" "opinion." Parroting a fact is different from parroting an opinion, but you'd have to have at least a 40 IQ to comprehend that, which you don't... 709646[/snapback] Why are WR's getting bigger in the NFL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Why are WR's getting bigger in the NFL? 709651[/snapback] Pasta? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts