Rivals Mock Draft

[dbair1967]

No, you didn't show squat. You only stammered and stumbled your way through an incoherent argument.

did you not read any of it? It was pretty clear Theo...but since you didnt pay attention or are choosing to ignore what was posted, here you go:

Wins- Indiana St, Western Michigan (still gave up 27 pts), Akron (gave up 24), Iowa, Minnesota, Ball St & Purdue

Losses- Illinois (27 pts), Michigan St (52pts), Penn St (36), Wisconsin (33), Northwestern (31), Oklahoma St (49)

Again, I dont care what kind of total stats you are looking at to spin doctor your case, but Indiana was a poor defensive team...they gave up a boatload of pts and yds...go back and look at their indv games, they gave up yds like crazy...several games close to 400 yds...a few games over 400+ yds and 2 or 3 games over 500 yds...11 guys out there on defense Theo, doubt very seriously all the others played well and he stunk enough on his own to yield these kinds of numbers

Jacques Reeves has the physical talent. Drafting the guy in the 2nd round based on a 4.3 40 yard dash ALONE is ridiculous

Jacque Reeves is stiff as a board...Porter isnt stiff like that

and I doubt anyone is rating Porter as a 2nd rd pick based on his speed alone...they do see other things they like about him...personalyl I think he'll go late in rd 2 or early in rd 3

David

 

[theogt]

did you not read any of it? It was pretty clear Theo...but since you didnt pay attention or are choosing to ignore what was posted, here you go:

Wins- Indiana St, Western Michigan (still gave up 27 pts), Akron (gave up 24), Iowa, Minnesota, Ball St & Purdue

Losses- Illinois (27 pts), Michigan St (52pts), Penn St (36), Wisconsin (33), Northwestern (31), Oklahoma St (49)

Again, I dont care what kind of total stats you are looking at to spin doctor your case, but Indiana was a poor defensive team...they gave up a boatload of pts and yds...go back and look at their indv games, they gave up yds like crazy...several games close to 400 yds...a few games over 400+ yds and 2 or 3 games over 500 yds...11 guys out there on defense Theo, doubt very seriously all the others played well and he stunk enough on his own to yield these kinds of numbers

Looking at points given up doesn't tell you much about their defensive line. Looking at sacks and TFL does.

Get it?

Jacque Reeves is stiff as a board...Porter isnt stiff like that

and I doubt anyone is rating Porter as a 2nd rd pick based on his speed alone...they do see other things they like about him...personalyl I think he'll go late in rd 2 or early in rd 3

David

Personally? You just base your opinion on a couple draft mags. What do you mean personally?

 

[TheCount]

Personally? You just base your opinion on a couple draft mags. What do you mean personally?

You make it sound like you're out there talking to them and watching old game tape, Theo.

 

[theogt]

You make it sound like you're out there talking to them and watching old game tape, Theo.

No, I don't make it sound like that at all. But you'll never catch me saying "X player must be good because Y draft magazine says he is." And any time I state an opinion I have reasonable grounds to back it up, other than saying "well he's rated highly by draft magazines."

 

[Bob Sacamano]

guys, Porter is being drafted on his physical skill-set and playmaking ability

 

[dbair1967]

Looking at points given up doesn't tell you much about their defensive line. Looking at sacks and TFL does.

Get it?

apparently there's just no help for you on this one Theo...if they had a good DL, or even an avg DL, they wouldnt be giving up those kinds of pts and yds

your basing your whole argument on how many sacks they averaged per game, when the stat means absolutely nothing by itself...so they got some sacks and tackles for loss? big deal...they probably got the vast majority of them against the sisters of the poor they played

and it wasnt just their pass defense which ranked bad, it was the run defense too...but maybe that was Porter's fault to huh?

David

 

[dbair1967]

No, I don't make it sound like that at all. But you'll never catch me saying "X player must be good because Y draft magazine says he is." And any time I state an opinion I have reasonable grounds to back it up, other than saying "well he's rated highly by draft magazines."

I never said he was was good because a draft magazine rated him highly though did I?

I guess we'll see on draft day...if the guy sux as bad you say he does it will be obvious because he definitely wont go on day one, and wont go early on day two either...however not only do the draft guides rate him pretty decetly, but Gosselin has him the 6th best CB in his latest rankings, and Gosselin does basically nothing more than ask opinions of NFL football people for his rankings

David

 

[dbair1967]

Looking at points given up doesn't tell you much about their defensive line

.

hey your right Theo it doesnt...but lets just conveniently forget about all those total yds and rushing yds they gave up...clearly niether of those has anything to do with DL play does it?

Personally? You just base your opinion on a couple draft mags. What do you mean personally?

David

 

[theogt]

apparently there's just no help for you on this one Theo...if they had a good DL, or even an avg DL, they wouldnt be giving up those kinds of pts and yds

That's not true at all. You can have a good DL and still give up a lot of points.

your basing your whole argument on how many sacks they averaged per game, when the stat means absolutely nothing by itself...so they got some sacks and tackles for loss? big deal...they probably got the vast majority of them against the sisters of the poor they played

and it wasnt just their pass defense which ranked bad, it was the run defense too...but maybe that was Porter's fault to huh?

David

How many sacks and how many TFLs the d-line got is a much better indicator of d-line success than points given up.

 

[Vintage]

This will get solved draft day as to where Porter's value is perceived by scouts.

 

[theogt]

I never said he was was good because a draft magazine rated him highly though did I?

I guess we'll see on draft day...if the guy sux as bad you say he does it will be obvious because he definitely wont go on day one, and wont go early on day two either...however not only do the draft guides rate him pretty decetly, but Gosselin has him the 6th best CB in his latest rankings, and Gosselin does basically nothing more than ask opinions of NFL football people for his rankings

David

This will get solved draft day as to where Porter's value is perceived by scouts.

I'm not saying he won't go in the mid-to-high rounds. He'll probably get drafted high based on his 4.3 40 yard dash alone. I'm saying he's probably going to suck in the NFL.

 

[dbair1967]

That's not true at all. You can have a good DL and still give up a lot of points.

How many sacks and how many TFLs the d-line got is a much better indicator of d-line success than points given up.

the yards too Theo...what about all those yds?

David

 

[theogt]

the yards too Theo...what about all those yds?

David

What about 'em? It apparently wasn't for lack of pressure by the D-line.

 

[dbair1967]

I'm not saying he won't go in the mid-to-high rounds. He'll probably get drafted high based on his 4.3 40 yard dash alone. I'm saying he's probably going to suck in the NFL.

actually what you said originally was he was the worst CB in the draft...then said he might not be the worst because some guys would go undrafted

if he was the worst CB in the draft he wouldnt get picked that early...if he was just fast, teams wouldnt take him with a premium draft pick...

and he might suck beyond belief in the NFL...then again the guy picked #1 overall might too, and that has happened...there's no exact science to this thing

David

 

[theogt]

actually what you said originally was he was the worst CB in the draft...then said he might not be the worst because some guys would go undrafted

The second statement was clarifying the first. Obviously guys that likely won't get drafted aren't "in this draft."

if he was the worst CB in the draft he wouldnt get picked that early...if he was just fast, teams wouldnt take him with a premium draft pick...

That's not true at all. There are guys picked in the 3rd round all the time based on nothing but their 40 times.

and he might suck beyond belief in the NFL...then again the guy picked #1 overall might too, and that has happened...there's no exact science to this thing

David

What I'm saying is that there's a GREATER CHANCE that he'll suck in the NFL.

 

[dbair1967]

That's not true at all. There are guys picked in the 3rd round all the time based on nothing but their 40 times.

where'd that get Ed Hervey and Randall Williams drafted at? Not many people who've ever entered the draft faster than those guys..why was Jacque Reeves picked so low? he had great speed

David

 

[dbair1967]

What I'm saying is that there's a GREATER CHANCE that he'll suck in the NFL.

well duh man...there's a reason one guy goes #1 overall and another guy doesnt go until 60

David

 

[theogt]

where'd that get Ed Hervey and Randall Williams drafted at? Not many people who've ever entered the draft faster than those guys..why was Jacque Reeves picked so low? he had great speed

David

Your refutation to the idea that some players are drafted in the 3rd round based on their 40 time is that some players aren't drafted in the 3rd round based on equal 40 times?

Fantastic logic!

well duh man...there's a reason one guy goes #1 overall and another guy doesnt go until 60

David

I'm talking about Porter in comparison with all of the other corners in this draft. Holy cow, don't be that dense.

 

[dbair1967]

What about 'em? It apparently wasn't for lack of pressure by the D-line.

cant find the box for the mighty Indian St game (which they won 55-7) but here are the others:

Western Mich- gave up 27pts 384 total yds...
Akron- gave up 24pts, 370 yds
Illinois- gave up 27 pts, 386 total yds and 288 of it on the ground, incl 214 to Rashard Mendenhall (longest run was 39, so it wasnt like he padded his numbers with some ridiculously long runs)
Iowa- gave up 20 pts, 428 ttl yds, over 300 passing
Minnesota- gave up 20 pts, 392 ttl yds..280 passing
Mich St- gave up 52 pts, 558 yds, 368 on the ground, over 200 to RB Ringer...the QB was under such immense pressure that he only completed 20 of 23 pases that day
Penn St- gave up 36 pts, 387 yds...almost equally split between run and pass
Wisconsin- gave up 33 pts, 423 yds, 279 was on the ground
Ball St- gave up 20 pts, 412 yds and 345 passing
Northwestern- gave up 31 pts, 456 yds, 291 passing...QB completed 27/34 throws
Purdue- 24 pts allowed, 359 ttl yds
Oklahoma ST...gave up 49 pts (35 in the first half alone) 513 ttl yds, over 300 passing and over 200 rushing

I'm sorry Theo, I just dont see any evidence of good DL play here...like I said, the "averages" you noted were probably from padding their stats against the really lousy teams they played early in the season

another thing...Indiana's defensive numbers were horrible and they didnt even play Michigan or Ohio St

David

 

[theogt]

Wow. It's amazing that someone would look at a team's total yards and total points and make the generalization that a single position unit on that team must suck, instead of actually looking at stats that are based solely on that position unit.

Really, I mean it's just silliness.

I guess if Ware gets 4 sacks in a game, but we give up 500 yards passing, Ware must have sucked in that game. Who knew?