TD alt

OK, I am wrong on that if that's true, but it's still meant to elicit some type of reaction to mention him and Megatron in the same breath, as Megatron was mainly known for his size-speed combination than his actual catch radius. Hell, there have been plenty of guys with arguably a better catch radius than Megatron, two that we should be very familiar with in the aforementioned Mike Evans, and Julio Jones. Julio may have been the greatest of them all. Megatron may be somewhere down the list, but Jones and Evans are probably more closer to the gold standard as far as catch radius is concerned.

@tukafan21 is admittedly biased, and I'm gonna admit that I kinda laugh and purse my lips and raise my eyebrows simultaneously when he says that Tet is going to be the next Megatron, but even if Tet can give you 75 percent of what Mike Evans has given the Bucs, then I'd take that in a heartbeat. The thing is, just from the eye test, I think that Tet may be a tad more fluid and a tad faster than Evans. He may be somewhere between Evans and CJ in regards to speed and athleticism, but even if his potential is that of Evans, that's great because Mike Evans has been one of the most productive receivers of a generation. Even with 4.5 speed, Evans has been generational. So, I don't care if Tet runs a sub 4.5 40 or not. Hell, Keenan Allen was a 4.6 guy. The same for Cooper Kupp. Tee Higgins is damned near a 4.6 guy. I say this to say that sometimes speed is overrated. One thing that we can say is that Tet absolutely has flypaper hands, and he looks to be a matchup nightmare due to his ability to make catches and his catch radius alone.

Forever the contrarian.

Huh?

That's a pretty substantial difference, and to be honest I don't know what metric the writer is using. The question would be if there is a similar ratio within the context of PFF's numbers though the numbers are different. Though the PFF numbers are elevated, do they follow a similar path, and can we draw the same conclusions? That's really the point, and I am no stats guy (and don't have a PFF subscription) so I don't know the answer. It would be interesting to see if there is any correlation however, in regards to pressure win-rates in college being predictive of success in the pros.

Not necessarily. Everyone has their opinion, so take the following with a grain of salt. "But for those EDGEs with a 14% pressure rate or lower, only 1 in 8 turn out to be good pros with almost half being busts." https://phillycovercorner.com/2024/12/projecting-edges-to-the-nfl-and-a-look-at-the-2025-draft-class/ Now I'm not saying this guy's mouth is a prayer book, because it's an opinion based on either his own big board (or someone else's), but the stats that he has informed readers about, in regards to the success rates of past drafted EDGEs in the NFL, is not something that's really arguable (presuming his stats are correct). What we must determine is if it's worth drafting an EDGE at a certain position within those parameters, or just buck the correlation (if it comes down to that). But within the context of the article, there are really only three guys worth taking in the first round.

It's all about value. Passing up superior players to reach for a need is not necessarily going to lead to desired results. You do that too many times, and you have what we have now.

I mean, no one is right. You just have to make it interesting, and Kiper is a fast talker with a smooth delivery that knows a lot about the players and team needs.

Well, Thomas Davis... But, yeah, when I was reading all that, I couldn't help but think to myself, "This may end in an injury settlement."

He doesn't need to play in 2025. And maybe not 2026 either from what I've read. This is but one peer-reviewed selection: "A devastating complication of returning to sport following ACL reconstruction (ACLR) is a second ACL injury. Strong evidence now indicates that younger, more active athletes are at particularly high risk for a second ACL injury and this risk is greatest within the first two years following ACLR." https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5226931/ Regarding your first question... "The optimal timing of ACLR is an important clinical decision that affects patient outcomes significantly. Even though there is no consensus in the literature, there are some trends regarding timing of ACLR. Various authors suggest that ACLR be performed at least 3 weeks after injury in order to avoid arthrofibrosis. More important than time alone, objective criteria including perioperative swelling, edema, hyperthermia, and ROM are important indicators of when surgery should be performed." https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4004131/#:~:text=The optimal timing of ACLR is an important clinical decision,in order to avoid arthrofibrosis.

Not really. It's a team sport. You win as a team and lose as a team. The QB pretty much is the most important player on the field, and affects and effects the game positively or negatively. If Daniels plays out of his mind, that doesn't cast a negative light on Barkley or his acquisition by the Eagles.

You keep saying that, but the fact is is that RBs are still very valuable on the field. But, yes, where you draft one does depend upon whether you need one. For example, if Jeanty is still on the board when the Cowboys pick, it might behoove them to take him.

It depends upon what stats you're looking at, and what supports your narrative. Teams with RBs drafted in the first round are not only represented in the playoffs, but the Super Bowl over the last decade. If you're going to say, "Well they didn't win," I will ask you, "Why didn't they win?" Hell, we didn't lose the Super Bowl due to J-Stew. The 49ers didn't lose the Super Bowl due to CMC (hell, they almost won because of him). Did the Ravens really lose the game yesterday because of King Henry? Stats can make something look black and white that's not. There are a multitude of reasons why teams don't win championships (not that the inability to win rings is necessarily a sign of a failed season). It's almost a certainty that you'd rather have one than not. Of course it's always better to find a first round talent on day 3 (but that can be said for any position). It's not necessarily a good strategy to go into the draft saying you're going to draft this position or that position on this day or that day, you should always let the draft come to you. It's about value and knowing when to strike.

We're talking about RBs

Does it? All I can say is that I've seen plenty of first round backs in the playoffs and the Super Bowl over the last 10 years, including a couple that we drafted.

We will never agree, and that's OK. I do agree that if you can find a back that is special in the later rounds, then go for it, but that still doesn't mean that you pass up on a back in round 1 or 2 when you need one. If they're injured, it is prudent to skip them, but if they're healthy and have proven to be able to put up 12 and 1300 yards in a season, then you have to give them a look. RBs are not plug-and-play, no matter how you try to say it. JAGs are not going to run you to where you want to go.

I never said he that he was. As a matter of fact I'm highly skeptical of his scheme, as to me it makes it easier for opposing running backs to get a head of steam. Perhaps when we get better personnel, it will work better. I still like a 4-3 base though, admittedly perhaps because I'm used to it.

I agree to a point, but certain schemes in theory and on the field play to a player's strengths and makes him look good. That's what the draft and FA acquisitions are all about. Of course some players can thrive in any scheme, but I can't say that Chinn is one of them.

Luvu due to finances and Chinn due to scheme.

Oh, wow. I didn't know. I had to look it up.

Meanwhile, CJ and the Texans are blaming the refs.

Yeah, he's shaky to say the least. I wouldn't do business with him.

Higgins is very good. He hasn't even nearly hit his ceiling, and he very well could be a top 10 receiver in the league. Ochocinco thinks he's a top 10 receiver already. Shannon Sharpe says top 15. As for getting paid, all the top receivers get their turn. That's just the nature of the game.

Yeah, but I don't see it as a possible overpay in regards to talent---Higgins has shined when Chase wasn't even on the field (he has)---it may be an overpay if Higgins continues to be hurt for games at a time.

I'm not going to be overly critical because it's too early to judge some of these guys (and I have to keep telling myself that), but they could do a much better job of actually drafting players. If we have another draft like the last, it will be one helluva red flag.