The Myles Jack Myth

[Alexander]

What is limiting him from playing Mike in the NFL?

His ability to read and react to what is happening in front of him.

That is most certainly nothing like he has done at UCLA.

 

[texbumthelife]

What's your opinion on Jaylon Smith?

Simply put: He's the best defender in the draft.

I can go much more into detail on why if you're being genuine and not just trolling.

As far as my opinion on Jack, I have literally dedicated hours and whole pages on this forum already to breaking him down. I made videos and took stills to back up my argument.

Some of us around this forum should have earned a little more clout by now than to be accused of forming opinions without doing any research. We've spent years now doing this and backing it up with photographic and video evidence. It's not that our critiques can't be challenged, but to insinuate they were formed on the basis or pure opinions and/or speculation, is ignorant and rude.

 

[Rogerthat12]

I've based what I've said on actual game tape. I've watched him get turned and swallowed by linemen and show an inability to disengage. I think he has instincts as a football player, but I don't see great instincts as a linebacker. He takes back angles quite frequently, but is able to recover due to his speed and athleticism. He misreads blockers quite a bit too. I always watch the tape myself before I form opinions, which is why I often don't comment on more obscure players--because I haven't seen anything on them.

We can agree to disagree in our evaluations, but this arrogant stance of "if you're opinion isn't the same as mine than you clearly haven't actually looked at footage" is base and far more delusional even than someone forming opinions without studying.

We can debate, but I won't hang around and be told what I have or haven't done. I am not a child. I wont debate with one.

I agree with your latter comments, we definitely disagree with the previous but that is a matter of interpretation.

I acknowledge he needs seasoning and film room study and has a small sample size of college games.

I have seen him blow up lineman, get off blocks, frustrate running lanes and take great angles as well.

Consistency with more experience and film study under NFL coaching will take care of much of that issue.

You can not teach his elite athleticism, instincts and play making ability.

The reason he is in most top 5 evaluations is because most see these same traits who evaluate the tape.

I disagree with the size chimera and all the other noncritical arguments based on nothing other than outmoded linebacker notions since the guy played well at MLB during his college career when asked!

 

[Alexander]

What's your opinion on Jaylon Smith?

I wish he didn't get hurt. Otherwise he would already be penciled in as approved for me.

 

[Alexander]

I agree with your latter comments, we definitely disagree with the previous but that is a matter of interpretation.

I acknowledge he needs seasoning and film room study and has a small sample size of college games.

I have seen him blow up lineman, get off blocks, frustrate running lanes and take great angles as well.

Consistency with more experience and film study under NFL coaching will take care of much of that issue.

You can not teach his elite athleticism, instincts and play making ability.

The reason he is in most top 5 evaluations is because most see these same traits who evaluate the tape.

I disagree with the size chimera and all the other noncritical arguments based on nothing other than outmoded linebacker notions since the guy played well at MLB during his college career when asked!

The pub he is getting now would go to Smith if he were healthy. He is basically a surrogate.

 

[Rogerthat12]

The pub he is getting now would go to Smith if he were healthy. He is basically a surrogate.

I really like Smith as a prospect, he would definitely be in the conversation for top linebacker and some view him that right now.

It truly is a shame about his injury because he has exceptional ability as well.

 

[texbumthelife]

I agree with your latter comments, we definitely disagree with the previous but that is a matter of interpretation.

I acknowledge he needs seasoning and film room study and has a small sample size of college games.

I have seen him blow up lineman, get off blocks, frustrate running lanes and take great angles as well.

Consistency with more experience and film study under NFL coaching will take care of much of that issue.

You can not teach his elite athleticism, instincts and play making ability.

The reason he is in most top 5 evaluations is because most see these same traits who evaluate the tape.

I disagree with the size chimera and all the other noncritical arguments based on nothing other than outmoded linebacker notions since the guy played well at MLB during his college career when asked!

I think you are the one I have already gone back and forth with this on quite a bit. I remember being accused of adhering to some outdated interpretation of what typical size for a player should be and then essentially having a debate devolve into an argument about arguing. So, i won't do that again.

I will say, whether you agree with it or not, smaller players have a harder time getting off blocks. Arm length has a great deal to do with that ability and smaller players generally have shorter arms. That is not some stone age evaluation, that's a fact. It's the same reason linemen on both sides have their arms measured and why that factors in so heavily.

Also, you can say that the model for a middle linebacker is outdated and provide examples of why, but it is exceedingly easy to pick out examples for why a certain body archetype is still valid.

All of this is why, when debating Myles Jack value it boils down to his physical ability in every single evaluation. No one, in any evaluation I have read or seen, has pointed out any single characteristic of a linebacker as his strong suit. It always comes down to, "this guys has the physical tools to be a tremendous linebacker." I am ok with that evaluation and projection, as long as it's not used to invalidate other arguments based on actual human data and metrics for the position. Facts are he doesn't have great stats or much experience. Those are facts.

I respect your opinion and if you think the model of what a middle linebacker should be is outdated, that is absolutely fine with me. However, don't use that as your means for devaluing someone else's argument. It's an opinion, not a fact.

 

[RS12]

If they go premium, it eliminates Jack. I think three things 1) The FO has fresh in their mind two dominating D Lines in the SB. Spence is a dark horse depending how his background check goes. 2) I think Lynch generates a lot of buzz combine and after, will make it hard to pass him up but they will. 3) If Ramsey is there they will take him as a corner.

 

[texbumthelife]

If they go premium, it eliminates Jack. I think three things 1) The FO has fresh in their mind two dominating D Lines in the SB. Spence is a dark horse depending how his background check goes. 2) I think Lynch generates a lot of buzz combine and after, will make it hard to pass him up but they will. 3) If Ramsey is there they will take him as a corner.

Carolina also has the best linebacker core in the game, which helps quite a bit. Just playing devil's advocate.

If you want a top tier defense, you need elite talent at each level. Pass rushers are more premium, but if you're going to let those guys pin their ears back, you better have linebackers who can run.

 

[RS12]

Carolina also has the best linebacker core in the game, which helps quite a bit. Just playing devil's advocate.

If you want a top tier defense, you need elite talent at each level. Pass rushers are more premium, but if you're going to let those guys pin their ears back, you better have linebackers who can run.

I also think Jack's Wonderlich will be a factor. I bet he does well. They dont let dummies into UCLA.. Just like I can almost guarentee Goff has one of the highest Wonderlichs.

 

[Rogerthat12]

I think you are the one I have already gone back and forth with this on quite a bit. I remember being accused of adhering to some outdated interpretation of what typical size for a player should be and then essentially having a debate devolve into an argument about arguing. So, i won't do that again.

I will say, whether you agree with it or not, smaller players have a harder time getting off blocks. Arm length has a great deal to do with that ability and smaller players generally have shorter arms. That is not some stone age evaluation, that's a fact. It's the same reason linemen on both sides have their arms measured and why that factors in so heavily.

Also, you can say that the model for a middle linebacker is outdated and provide examples of why, but it is exceedingly easy to pick out examples for why a certain body archetype is still valid.

All of this is why, when debating Myles Jack value it boils down to his physical ability in every single evaluation. No one, in any evaluation I have read or seen, has pointed out any single characteristic of a linebacker as his strong suit. It always comes down to, "this guys has the physical tools to be a tremendous linebacker." I am ok with that evaluation and projection, as long as it's not used to invalidate other arguments based on actual human data and metrics for the position. Facts are he doesn't have great stats or much experience. Those are facts.

I respect your opinion and if you think the model of what a middle linebacker should be is outdated, that is absolutely fine with me. However, don't use that as your means for devaluing someone else's argument. It's an opinion, not a fact.

It is completely acceptable to be critical of a narrow perspective of what a MLB should look like in today's NFL, I disagree with this evaluation and I can be critical of the notion just like you can disagree with the criticism freely.

We have been over this other stuff ad nauseam, Jack has played will and mlb in college with minimal issues, he has excellent contact balance, speed and block deconstruction so I do not have a problem with him playing the middle assuming he is ready to QB the defense, 245 lbs is plenty big in my view.

Though adding a better 1 tech may help all the linebackers.

If not, they can move Lee back and let him roll at the will if they so choose.

Neither of our opinions will change the fact that Jack, whether you love, like or hate him right now is considered a top 5 talent by most evaluations for all of the aforementioned reasons.

 

[TwoDeep3]

In the OP's video, they state he is not a great film guy, not a cerebral player.

I see Sean Lee, a cerebral player with great instincts be at the ball so much it's ridiculous. Wonder if Lee watches film?

I got my answer on this guy now.

 

[texbumthelife]

It is completely acceptable to be critical of a narrow perspective of what a MLB should look like in today's NFL, I disagree with this evaluation and I can be critical of the notion just like you can disagree with the criticism freely.

We have been over this other stuff ad nauseam, Jack has played will and mlb in college with minimal issues, he has excellent contact balance, speed and block deconstruction so I do not have a problem with him playing the middle assuming he is ready to QB the defense, 245 lbs is plenty big in my view.

Though adding a better 1 tech may help all the linebackers.

If not, they can move Lee back and let him roll at the will if they so choose.

Neither of our opinions will change the fact that Jack, whether you love, like or hate him right now is considered a top 5 talent by most evaluations for all of the aforementioned reasons.

I didn't say you couldn't be critical of it, I said don't use it to devalue someone's argument. Like saying, "you're point is invalid because it's based on an outdated standard." No, the point is still valid, you just disagree with it.

Also you say he had "minimal issues" at MLB, but many would disagree. He looked much better when put outside.

Also, it's ridiculous I have to keep repeating this, I should just permanently have it on my clipboard, I have stated I would be totally fine with picking him at our pick. So, clearly, I haven't argued about his status as a top 5 talent.

 

[texbumthelife]

I also think Jack's Wonderlich will be a factor. I bet he does well. They dont let dummies into UCLA.. Just like I can almost guarentee Goff has one of the highest Wonderlichs.

I don't really give a hoot about his wonderlick. It means nothing to mean. However, I think his interviews will be very important. That's where he will prove whether he's really got a head for the game right now or if he'll need a bit of coaching up.

 

[RS12]

I don't really give a hoot about his wonderlick. It means nothing to mean. However, I think his interviews will be very important. That's where he will prove whether he's really got a head for the game right now or if he'll need a bit of coaching up.

I actually think it is a sign of intelligence and ability to learn. Certainly fore shadowed Claiborne.

 

[texbumthelife]

I actually think it is a sign of intelligence and ability to learn. Certainly fore shadowed Claiborne.

I think it's much more important for a QB who needs to deduce a lot more on the fly.

For every Claiborne, there are just as many guys who bomb it and become super stars, or ace it and wash out. That's why I don't care about it. What I care most about if film.

 

[CATCH17]

Simply put: He's the best defender in the draft.

I can go much more into detail on why if you're being genuine and not just trolling.

As far as my opinion on Jack, I have literally dedicated hours and whole pages on this forum already to breaking him down. I made videos and took stills to back up my argument.

Some of us around this forum should have earned a little more clout by now than to be accused of forming opinions without doing any research. We've spent years now doing this and backing it up with photographic and video evidence. It's not that our critiques can't be challenged, but to insinuate they were formed on the basis or pure opinions and/or speculation, is ignorant and rude.

I agree with you.

I just don't know how he'll recover from his injury.

 

[Rogerthat12]

I didn't say you couldn't be critical of it, I said don't use it to devalue someone's argument. Like saying, "you're point is invalid because it's based on an outdated standard." No, the point is still valid, you just disagree with it.

Also you say he had "minimal issues" at MLB, but many would disagree. He looked much better when put outside.

Also, it's ridiculous I have to keep repeating this, I should just permanently have it on my clipboard, I have stated I would be totally fine with picking him at our pick. So, clearly, I haven't argued about his status as a top 5 talent.

Arguments are either valid or invalid by nature, there is nothing wrong with this critical approach.

Further, propositions are either true or false this is basic logic and argumentation.

You can even have a valid argument with a false proposition.

He looked fine at MLB in my view and many agree since they have no problem projecting him to MLB in the NFL if a team wants to play him there accordingly, he has flex so it really does not matter.

There is really nothing left to exchange about this that will be productive, I think we have both expressed our disagreements and neither of us will budge, it is thus not fruitful.

 

[texbumthelife]

Arguments are either valid or invalid by nature, there is nothing wrong with this critical approach.

Further, propositions are either true or false this is basic logic and argumentation.

You can even have a valid argument with a false proposition.

He looked fine at MLB in my view and many agree since they have no problem projecting him to MLB in the NFL if a team wants to play him there accordingly, he has flex so it really does not matter.

There is really nothing left to exchange about this that will be productive, I think we have both expressed our disagreements and neither of us will budge, it is thus not fruitful.

Arguments are either strong or weak by nature. Telling someone their argument is invalid based on your own criteria is a Scotsman's Fallacy (to steal another posters 'term of the week')

 

[Rogerthat12]

Arguments are either strong or weak by nature. Telling someone their argument is invalid based on your own criteria is a Scotsman's Fallacy (to steal another posters 'term of the week')

Incorrect, arguments are either valid or invalid, this is logic 101.

You mean support for arguments is strong or weak.

Propositions are true or false by nature, this is logic 101.

This is my field by the way, argumentation and logic to be exact.

You can have a false proposition with a valid argument with the problem being that your proposition is faulty and thus all corresponding argumentation is logical but false.

You can have strong support for said valid argument but if the proposition is false, so is your conclusion even if logical and well supported.

Scotsman fallacy is an informal fallacy attempt to argue without using formal logic as a basis as ground for demonstrating false proposition.

One need not base truth testing on subjective criteria but via categorical propositional evaluation based on the square of opposition, immediate and successive inferences, venn diagram and corresponding contradictions.