LaMarcus Joyner underated!!!

[Fla Cowpoke]

Bob Sanders played FS @ about Joyners size. Earl Thomas looks extremely small compared to the rest of his backfield team mates.

Great call on Bob Sanders...he fits the bill. Looking at his stat line for his career, it pretty much shows the concern. He played 8 seasons and his best two seasons he played 14 and 15 games. The other 6 years, the most games he played was 6.

Thomas is more in the Ed Reed or Polamalu stature....couple inches taller and thicker. I do like the player.

 

[pacboyX]

So the whole too short for the nfl is at it again. I thought Russel Wilson eliminated that debate. Joyner is a playmaking safety who isnt flimsy as yall are making it seem. Collarbones get broken whether you are 6'2 or 5'8, its about playing freaking football and Joyner is good at what he does and thats covering and causing WR to let the ball go.

 

[Fla Cowpoke]

So the whole too short for the nfl is at it again. I thought Russel Wilson eliminated that debate. Joyner is a playmaking safety who isnt flimsy as yall are making it seem. Collarbones get broken whether you are 6'2 or 5'8, its about playing freaking football and Joyner is good at what he does and thats covering and causing WR to let the ball go.

I guess Wilson ended the debate if you think he is a great QB.

Same with Joyner....when you can't really find more than one or two at his size that has played the position effectively it's not overstating the concern.

The fact that you aren't considering the size along with all the other things in his makeup indicates you aren't willing to look at the whole picture. History says you are a taking a fairly big risk on him being able to be a long term contributor.

 

[Stryker44]

Is he Seth Joyner's son?

 

[pacboyX]

I guess Wilson ended the debate if you think he is a great QB.

Same with Joyner....when you can't really find more than one or two at his size that has played the position effectively it's not overstating the concern.

The fact that you aren't considering the size along with all the other things in his makeup indicates you aren't willing to look at the whole picture. History says you are a taking a fairly big risk on him being able to be a long term contributor.

Nearly every pick is a "risk". Not saying Wilson is great but I would definetly argue that he should have been rated on par with Luck and RG3..What other things besides size concerns you about Joyner?
And yea its hard to find others at his size in the NFL, heck can barely find them in college. Thats why we may wanna actually take a second look(or pick ) because he has produced at that "out of the norm" size.

 

[4lifecowboy]

Funny how production seems to lack in the overview of a player.

 

[dbonham]

I would point to Tyrann Mathieu as the argument for Joyner succeeding in the NFL before Wilson

 

[xwalker]

So the whole too short for the nfl is at it again. I thought Russel Wilson eliminated that debate. Joyner is a playmaking safety who isnt flimsy as yall are making it seem. Collarbones get broken whether you are 6'2 or 5'8, its about playing freaking football and Joyner is good at what he does and thats covering and causing WR to let the ball go.

The draft is about probabilities. Russel Wilson was a 3rd round pick because the odds are not good that a 5'11 QB is going to be successful.

The odds of success in the NFL for a 5'8, 184 lb, DB that runs a 4.55 forty are not that good. Avoiding players with lower probabilities of success does not indicate that it's impossible for them to be successful, just that the probability is lower.

If you draft a player like Joyner in the 2nd round, you are bypassing a lot of really good players. You have to be convinced that he has a higher probability of success than all of them.

 

[pacboyX]

The draft is about probabilities. Russel Wilson was a 3rd round pick because the odds are not good that a 5'11 QB is going to be successful.

The odds of success in the NFL for a 5'8, 184 lb, DB that runs a 4.55 forty are not that good. Avoiding players with lower probabilities of success does not indicate that it's impossible for them to be successful, just that the probability is lower.

If you draft a player like Joyner in the 2nd round, you are bypassing a lot of really good players. You have to be convinced that he has a higher probability of success than all of them.

Probabilities? The draft is really about probability? I really wanna see the stats on your probability idea. I mean how many ideal size/weight/speed people are drafted only to be labeled bust. Yea he ran a 4.55 but if you actually observed his combine drills he was actually quite above par in my opinion. And plus a 40 time doesn't really indicate quickness or game speed.

 

[xwalker]

Probabilities? The draft is really about probability? I really wanna see the stats on your probability idea. I mean how many ideal size/weight/speed people are drafted only to be labeled bust. Yea he ran a 4.55 but if you actually observed his combine drills he was actually quite above par in my opinion. And plus a 40 time doesn't really indicate quickness or game speed.

Me debating with you about probability theory would be like Vince Lombardi debating football with Skip Bayless.

 

[pacboyX]

Me debating with you about probability theory would be like Vince Lombardi debating football with Skip Bayless.

I have a BS in marine sci dude, i know what freakin probability theory is. Saying we should draft strictly on probability is where me n u difer.

 

[Maxmadden]

I have a BS in marine sci dude, i know what freakin probability theory is. Saying we should draft strictly on probability is where me n u difer.

I have a BS in Business Administration and all Xwalker said is that your probability is lower and you are passing over higher probabilities. Dudeness? Duderino?