Who can we least afford to lose?

[BouncingCheese]

Why would we ask Davis to move to RT?

We drafted Marten/Free, both whom are OT's. And we'd get to leave Davis at RG.

Jerrah was thinking about it.

IF Marten and Free aren't ready.

Rogers and Peterman weren't ready; though I think Free is going to be something on this team.

 

[BouncingCheese]

That is incorrect. At no time did he ever run a verified 4.63. Those numbers are from his pre-off-season school posted numbers, which never turn out to be correct.

Edit: By the way, that second "broad jump" was supposed to be "vertical jump was poor."

Campus times and measurables are bogus then?

 

[theogt]

Campus times and measurables are bogus then?

Schools post numbers for players long before the "draft process" starts. These numbers are notoriously wrong. Every year they're proven far off target. One receiver this past year was listed as 6'4" all season by his college, but when he measured at the Combine he was 6'1".

So you can't trust those "college numbers." Spencer ran twice at the Combine and twice at his pro day. The overwhelming majority of time clocks (computer and handheld) had him timed in the mid-4.7s.

That's not a bad time. It's pretty good, actually. But it's doesn't make him a "freak" or a "measurables" guy, particularly combined with his broad and vertical jump. What Spencer was highly ranked for was his production on the field, which was my original point.

 

[WoodysGirl]

Schools post numbers for players long before the "draft process" starts. These numbers are notoriously wrong. Every year they're proven far off target. One receiver this past year was listed as 6'4" all season by his college, but when he measured at the Combine he was 6'1".

So you can't trust those "college numbers." Spencer ran twice at the Combine and twice at his pro day. The overwhelming majority of time clocks (computer and handheld) had him timed in the mid-4.7s.

That's not a bad time. It's pretty good, actually. But it's doesn't make him a "freak" or a "measurables" guy, particularly combined with his broad and vertical jump. What Spencer was highly ranked for was his production on the field, which was my original point.

Do you have a source for that? I looked around and not that it makes much of a big difference, but 4.6 has been consistent.

I am curious as to what his workout numbers are, though. Looked in the draft day zone and didn't really see anything.

 

[Vintage]

Do you have a source for that? I looked around and not that it makes much of a big difference, but 4.6 has been consistent.

I am curious as to what his workout numbers are, though. Looked in the draft day zone and didn't really see anything.

http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/profile.php?pyid=12603

40: 4.70
Pro Day: 4.69

http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/patriots/?p=1132

POSTIVES: Spencer is a fierce, fierce competitor who compares favorably to ex-Boilermakers defensive ends Rosevelt Colvin, Shaun Phillips and Akin Ayodele, all of whom are now 3-4 LBs in the pros. Already bigger than those three, Spencer possesses a bench press close to 500 pounds (while repping 30 times at 225 at the combine) and squats 650 pounds, which should give him the requisite strength to play the edge as a 3-4 OLB. And further proof lies in the fact that held up well against massive projected first-round left tackles Joe Thomas and Levi Brown in the Big Ten, recording a combined 3.5 tackles for losses against those two. But the trait Spencer is known best for is his explosion off the edge, triggered by a devastating first step. At the combine, he ran a 4.70 40-yard dash and complemented it with a 4.69 at his Pro Day, numbers that don’t quite illustrate how quick he is on the field. In addition, he’s got the motor to chase plays down from the backside, and the smarts and awareness to quickly diagnose play-action and get his hands up into passing lanes. As part of that, he plays with very good technique, using his hands well and bringing a good understanding of leverage against bigger blockers.

http://scout.scout.com/a.z?s=211&p=8&c=1&nid=2707849

40: 4.72

http://nfl-draft-site.blogspot.com/2007/02/defensive-linemen-at-2007-nfl-combine.html

Anthony Spencer 6027 261 4.78 4.73 Purdue

http://www.nfl.com/draft/analysis/individual_workouts

Spencer (6-2 5/8, 265) ran 4.69 and 4.71 in the 40 but stood on his other numbers from the Combine.

 

[theogt]

http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/profile.php?pyid=12603



http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/patriots/?p=1132



http://scout.scout.com/a.z?s=211&p=8&c=1&nid=2707849



http://nfl-draft-site.blogspot.com/2007/02/defensive-linemen-at-2007-nfl-combine.html



http://www.nfl.com/draft/analysis/individual_workouts

That about covers it. The 4.70 number was his best time at the Combine. They take 6 times at the combine based on 2 runs (two handhelds and a computer time per run). His best of all 6 times was the 4.70. So obviously the rest were above that. Same situation at his Pro Day where his best was a 4.69. Most times had him in the mid-4.7s, and as I mentioned, one time had him at a low 4.8. If I can find the source for that later, I'll post it. I'm at work now, though. I assure you WG, I followed this guy extremely close during the off-season. On his Pro Day I was constantly checking different boards to hear any news that leaked out.

At his very best on a good day he can slightly break into a high 4.6, but saying he's a 4.6 guy is just being generous.

Still, 4.7s is pretty good for a guy his size. But his 10 yard split (what really matters for a DE), his broad jump (very important), and his vertical aren't anything special. They're all fine -- it's not like he's not a good athlete, but it's his college production that was what put him in the first round.

 

[Vintage]

That about covers it. The 4.70 number was his best time at the Combine. They take 6 times at the combine based on 2 runs (two handhelds and a computer time per run). His best of all 6 times was the 4.70. So obviously the rest were above that. Same situation at his Pro Day where his best was a 4.69. Most times had him in the mid-4.7s, and as I mentioned, one time had him at a low 4.8. If I can find the source for that later, I'll post it. I'm at work now, though. I assure you WG, I followed this guy extremely close during the off-season. On his Pro Day I was constantly checking different boards to hear any news that leaked out.

At his very best on a good day he can slightly break into a high 4.6, but saying he's a 4.6 guy is just being generous.

Still, 4.7s is pretty good for a guy his size. But his 10 yard split (what really matters for a DE), his broad jump (very important), and his vertical aren't anything special. They're all fine -- it's not like he's not a good athlete, but it's his college production that was what put him in the first round.

One of those links had the 4.8 time listed in somewhere....

 

[WoodysGirl]

http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/profile.php?pyid=12603



http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/patriots/?p=1132



http://scout.scout.com/a.z?s=211&p=8&c=1&nid=2707849



http://nfl-draft-site.blogspot.com/2007/02/defensive-linemen-at-2007-nfl-combine.html



http://www.nfl.com/draft/analysis/individual_workouts

A bit overkill, don't you think. All I asked for was one.

 

[BouncingCheese]

Schools post numbers for players long before the "draft process" starts. These numbers are notoriously wrong. Every year they're proven far off target. One receiver this past year was listed as 6'4" all season by his college, but when he measured at the Combine he was 6'1".

So you can't trust those "college numbers." Spencer ran twice at the Combine and twice at his pro day. The overwhelming majority of time clocks (computer and handheld) had him timed in the mid-4.7s.

That's not a bad time. It's pretty good, actually. But it's doesn't make him a "freak" or a "measurables" guy, particularly combined with his broad and vertical jump. What Spencer was highly ranked for was his production on the field, which was my original point.

Right... just like Lawrence Timmons was listed at 6-3 when he was 6 feet.

Makes sense. Maybe I was confusing that with pro day stuff. I guess he is more like Merriman that I was thinking; though Merriman is more gifted Physically than Spencer is.

 

[Vintage]

A bit overkill, don't you think. All I asked for was one.

I just listed a bunch because I had already googled it. Plus, I don't really know whats considered 'reputable' within the realms of 40 times.

So I posted options for people to choose from.

 

[Stautner]

He didn't run a 4.6. He ran a 4.69 once but that is suspect. The majority of his other runs were in the 4.7s (and one was a 4.8).

Facts. They're good to have. Other than that his broad jump was mediocre. His vertical jump was poor. He's not a "measurables" type of guy. He's big and strong, that's for sure.

No, he's not. Not even close.

Look, I'm a huge Spencer fan. I was pimping the guy the entire off-season, wanting us to draft him. But he's not a "measurables" guy. In fact, there were about 10 or so DEs in this year's draft with better measurables.

A 265 pound guy running a 4.69 ....... yeah that extra 9/100 ths of a second really changes things - he's pretty average isn't he? Of course, when it suits your arguments the times are questionable.

I'm curious, who told you that a guy who has good mesaurables has to be at the top of EVERY SINGLE MEASURABLE CATEGORY POSSIBLE?

That's ridiculous - so what if he didn't have the greatest jumping ablity - you would find that virtually EVERY prospect that is considered to have good measurables has some areas he isn't as strong in.

Nevertheless, your arguments are still ridiculous and off topic for 3 reasons.

1. I never said the "measurables" were ALL there was to the guy.

2. I didn't say he was strong in EVERY SINGLE MEASURABLE CATEGORY - that's your own personal criteria for this discussion. No matter how you slice it, 265 lbs, 4.69 40 time and 500 lb bench press ARE good measurables - someone doesn't have to be the best of the best of the best throughout history to have "good measurables".

3. The "measurables" wasn't even the point of my post - the point was how I put more stock in what I see on the field than in whatever plusses are attributed to a guy before we actually see what he can do at this level.

 

[WoodysGirl]

I just listed a bunch because I had already googled it. Plus, I don't really know whats considered 'reputable' within the realms of 40 times.

So I posted options for people to choose from.

damn google. Of course I went to sites other than that one.

 

[theogt]

A 265 pound guy running a 4.69 ....... yeah that extra 9/100 ths of a second really changes things - he's pretty average isn't he? Of course, when it suits your arguments the times are questionable.

I'm curious, who told you that a guy who has good mesaurables has to be at the top of EVERY SINGLE MEASURABLE CATEGORY POSSIBLE?

That's ridiculous - so what if he didn't have the greatest jumping ablity - you would find that virtually EVERY prospect that is considered to have good measurables has some areas he isn't as strong in.

Nevertheless, your arguments are still ridiculous and off topic for 3 reasons.

1. I never said the "measurables" were ALL there was to the guy.

2. I didn't say he was strong in EVERY SINGLE MEASURABLE CATEGORY - that's your own personal criteria for this discussion. No matter how you slice it, 265 lbs, 4.69 40 time and 500 lb bench press ARE good measurables - someone doesn't have to be the best of the best of the best throughout history to have "good measurables".

3. The "measurables" wasn't even the point of my post - the point was how I put more stock in what I see on the field than in whatever plusses are attributed to a guy before we actually see what he can do at this level.

You said he was a guy with outstanding measurables. He's not. He's a guy with oustanding college production. Your overarching point was that you prefer production to measurables, albeit you were referring to production at the NFL level. It's a common point ("Who cares about the underwear olympics -- all that matters is production on the field.").

You mischaracterized Spencer as a draftee and I corrected you. That is all.

And by the way, the 4.8 number is as much an outlier as the 4.69 number, so you could just as easily say your number was 2/10 of a second off, which in 40 times is a world of difference. Have a nice day.

 

[Stautner]

You said he was a guy with outstanding measurables. He's not. He's a guy with oustanding college production. Your overarching point was that you prefer production to measurables, albeit you were referring to production at the NFL level. It's a common point ("Who cares about the underwear olympics -- all that matters is production on the field.").

You mischaracterized Spencer as a draftee and I corrected you. That is all.

At 265 lbs 4.69 40 time and 500 pound bench press IS outstanding - your apparent belief that "outstanding measurables" ONLY means outstanding in EVERY SINGLE measurable category effectively rules out almost EVERYONE from having "outstanding measurables".

This is like me arguing with your characterization that he had outstanding production by saying he ONLY had outstanding production as a Senior.

A lot of the reason others were rated higher is that the body of his college career wasn't nearly as productive as the Senior year.

But so what - none of that was my point, and the fragment of what I wrote that you are obsessed with STILL wasn't the point of the post (wake up - listen to what I was getting at) - I was merely saying that nothing matters other than what he is able to show on the field at the NFL level.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Who else thinks theogt and Stautner need to get a room?

 

[ZeroClub]

Who else thinks theogt and Stautner need to get a room?

a link

 

[theogt]

At 265 lbs 4.69 40 time and 500 pound bench press IS outstanding - your apparent belief that "outstanding measurables" ONLY means outstanding in EVERY SINGLE measurable category effectively rules out almost EVERYONE from having "outstanding measurables".

This is like me arguing with your characterization that he had outstanding production by saying he ONLY had outstanding production as a Senior.

A lot of the reason others were rated higher is that the body of his college career wasn't nearly as productive as the Senior year.

But so what - none of that was my point, and the fragment of what I wrote that you are obsessed with STILL wasn't the point of the post (wake up - listen to what I was getting at) - I was merely saying that nothing matters other than what he is able to show on the field at the NFL level.

He's a mid 4.7 40 guy. That's not outstanding. The only measurable about him that is outstanding is his bench, which truly is impressive. There's really no other way to slice any of this.

 

[PBJTime]

He's a mid 4.7 40 guy. That's not outstanding. The only measurable about him that is outstanding is his bench, which truly is impressive. There's really no other way to slice any of this.

Call me crazy, but if the guy ran a 4.69, that means he is capable of running that quickly. I don't think you take the highest number they run and use that, I think you take the best time they get...in this case, he DID, in fact, run a 4.69. Like any "measurable", you should get credit for the BEST that you can do in each category. Just my two cents, fwiw.

 

[AbeBeta]

Call me crazy, but if the guy ran a 4.69, that means he is capable of running that quickly. I don't think you take the highest number they run and use that, I think you take the best time they get...in this case, he DID, in fact, run a 4.69. Like any "measurable", you should get credit for the BEST that you can do in each category. Just my two cents, fwiw.

That's an odd approach. Your best measure or "speed" (or anything for that matter) is an average taken over multiple measurements. If you are really a 4.8 guy you make break off the occassional 4.69 or even 4.91. That's what is called "variability" - The true time is reflected by the average of multiple runs -- not just the best time out of the bunch.

Tell me, if you were a doctor and you had a patient who showed high blood pressure on 5 visits but normal BP on 1 visit, would you take the BEST that the patient did in that category?

 

[Stautner]

Call me crazy, but if the guy ran a 4.69, that means he is capable of running that quickly. I don't think you take the highest number they run and use that, I think you take the best time they get...in this case, he DID, in fact, run a 4.69. Like any "measurable", you should get credit for the BEST that you can do in each category. Just my two cents, fwiw.

That's an odd approach. Your best measure or "speed" (or anything for that matter) is an average taken over multiple measurements. If you are really a 4.8 guy you make break off the occassional 4.69 or even 4.91. That's what is called "variability" - The true time is reflected by the average of multiple runs -- not just the best time out of the bunch.

Tell me, if you were a doctor and you had a patient who showed high blood pressure on 5 visits but normal BP on 1 visit, would you take the BEST that the patient did in that category?

The fact is that ogt (finally) made a point, because an average IS the best indicator.

However PBJTime also makes a point, because the highest time is what is always quoted.

Accordingly, if we were to make a comparision using Spencer's AVERAGE time against the TOP times that were quoted for everyone else it would be a false comparison.

When people discuss the times players ran at the combine, they aren't discussing the average of several times, they are discussing his best time - which is also the time that best indicates his top end potential.

Why should we use that standard for everyone else and not for Spencer?

STILL - YOU NEVER EVER EVER address the fact that you are going ON AND ON AND ON again about something that wasn't even the point of my post.

That's your MO - you take a kernal out of context that has little to do with the focus of the post on harp on it.

Get over it - start reading posts and realizing what the point was.