Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 56 of 56
  1. #46
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,555
    Rep Power
    144

    Re: Suh on sports science

    Quote Originally Posted by berg8309 View Post
    Define credible. Scouts Inc. has McCoy as better. Is some internet fanboy's draft board better?
    Ditto Mike Mayock.

    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

  2. #47
    PeoriaRam's Avatar
    PeoriaRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,173
    Rep Power
    39

    Re: Suh on sports science

    Quote Originally Posted by berg8309 View Post
    Define credible. Scouts Inc. has McCoy as better. Is some internet fanboy's draft board better?
    Scouts is no better a judge of how talent pans out than anyone else.

  3. #48
    berg8309's Avatar
    berg8309 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,897
    Rep Power
    42

    Re: Suh on sports science

    Quote Originally Posted by PeoriaRam View Post
    Scouts is no better a judge of how talent pans out than anyone else.
    Well first off, I would say they are more credible than X fan's website, as Scout's Inc. has more access to video and more time to analyze it. In general I agree, at the same time as they are no more credible than anyone else, anyone else is really no more credible than Scout's Inc. People have a tendency to agree with whatever source picks the guy they want, and downplay sources that don't.

    So if Scout's Inc. isn't a credible source, who is a credible source and why are they more credible? That's why I asked to define credible. I think they are credible to the degree that anyone not on an NFL team can be (Which isn't a lot) and he asked for just one credible source without Suh as being the #1 DT, so I gave one, with the qualifier to define what he considers credible.

    Just because you disagree with a source's assessment of players doesn't mean they aren't credible. NFL teams that aren't the Raiders get it wrong all the time too.

  4. #49
    BM_Face's Avatar
    BM_Face is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Nebraska
    Age
    43
    Posts
    436
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Suh on sports science

    Quote Originally Posted by berg8309 View Post
    Define credible. Scouts Inc. has McCoy as better. Is some internet fanboy's draft board better?
    Quote Originally Posted by HUbison View Post
    Ditto Mike Mayock.
    Ok, granted. Add Chad Reuter and Don Banks. I still can't conceive how McCoy gets ranked over Suh based on stats, character, combine, and on-field performance. Suh leads all catagories.

    Jan 22 "Mayock said he believes the two players have different skills but are equally as valuable." Also thought Bradford would not go #1 "Those two players (Suh and McCoy) just dwarf the quarterback issue." (By Tom Kowalski
    January 22, 2010)

    I guess he sorted things out and put McCoy #1.

    Scouts Inc has McCoy at 98 and Suh at 97. Not sure what kind of measuring stick they are using, but I do not see it.

    Gregg Doyal March 2 2010. CBS-sports

    "In three years at Oklahoma, when McCoy started 38 games, he had 83 tackles and 14˝ sacks."

    "Suh? He had 82 tackles and 12 sacks in 2009."

    "Both played Texas. McCoy had 3 tackles and a sack. Suh had 12 tackles and 4.5 sacks."

    "Both played Kansas St. McCoy had one tackle. Suh had 9 tackles and a sack."

    "I'm just saying this: When Ndamukong Suh was finished at Nebraska, he was universally hailed as the best defensive tackle in college football in years, maybe decades. Maybe ever."

    "Now, all of a sudden, he's not even the best defensive tackle in his class? That's stupid."

    Word.
    A defeated look of consternation, dissappointment, or even pain. The name derives from the look one often gets when challenged by a large BM.

  5. #50
    Bralidore(RAMMODE)'s Avatar
    Bralidore(RAMMODE) is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,149
    Rep Power
    22

    Re: Suh on sports science

    Its amazing what over analyzation and speculation creates. Guys move up and down draft boards without playing a down of football. They see a player slip on the field and knock him down a peg because antoher guy didn't slip. Over analyzing tape. I'm guessing because of Mccoy's "seemingly" greater reportoire of pass rush moves and explosion on the snap they project he will be better. Its the same way they put JPP so high in the first round. They base all judgements assuming things will translate. They seem to think of Suh as an intelligent brute that doesn't get up the field like Mccoy does. In conclusion, they are saying Mccoy will be more succesful because he's more of a gap penetrator, and since the NFL is a passing league, it would seem he is more of a threat to rush the passer.

    Personally I think Suh is simply the best guy in the draft, with Mccoy being a peg below

  6. #51
    berg8309's Avatar
    berg8309 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,897
    Rep Power
    42

    Re: Suh on sports science

    Quote Originally Posted by BM_Face View Post
    Ok, granted. Add Chad Reuter and Don Banks. I still can't conceive how McCoy gets ranked over Suh based on stats, character, combine, and on-field performance. Suh leads all catagories.
    I'm not sure how anyone can either honestly, but he asked for one credible source that thought McCoy would be better. Kiper rates them 1A and 1B and says the margin between is razor thin, btw.

  7. #52
    TakeSuh is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    colorado
    Posts
    109
    Rep Power
    5

    Re: Suh on sports science

    Ndamukong Suh, Nebraska



    Suh


    Height: 6-4
    Weight: 307
    40 time: 5.03
    Short shuttle: 4.44
    3-cone: 7.21
    Vertical: 35.5”
    Broad jump: 8’09”
    225lb bench: 32
    Starts: 36
    Tackles: 212
    Tackles for loss: 56
    Sacks: 24
    QB hurries: 38
    Forced fumbles: 3
    Fumble recoveries: 1


    Gerald McCoy, Oklahoma



    McCoy


    Height: 6-4
    Weight: 295
    40 time: 5.04
    Short shuttle: 4.48
    3-cone: 7.32
    Vertical: 30.5”
    Broad jump: 9’6”
    225lb bench: 23 reps
    Starts: 40
    Tackles: 83
    Tackles for loss: 33
    Sacks: 14˝
    QB hurries: 18
    Forced fumbles: 2
    Fumble recoveries: 1

    this should shut up everyone, mccoy is better in one catergory LOL!

  8. #53
    berg8309's Avatar
    berg8309 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,897
    Rep Power
    42

    Re: Suh on sports science

    Yea, way to show those draft pundits

    They are working off of film, not the combine (worthless) and stats. I think it is overrating Suh to say McCoy is completely and utterly incomparable to the greatness of Suh. There really isn't any pundit who seems to think Suh is far and away better than McCoy to the point of no return. Most think Suh is better, but give McCoy a close second, or as Kiper says it, a razor thin 2nd.

    If combine scores showed how truly great a player is then the Raiders should be freakin stacked. The stats I will admit are heavily in favor of Suh, he really was a one man wrecking ball for Nebraska.

  9. #54
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,555
    Rep Power
    144

    Re: Suh on sports science

    Fellas, I, too, think Suh is the better player. I'm just not ready to propel my own opinion past those who scout players for a living. There are plenty who think Suh is the better prospect, and (believe it or not) there are many professionals who see McCoy as the better player.
    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

  10. #55
    TakeSuh is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    colorado
    Posts
    109
    Rep Power
    5

    Re: Suh on sports science

    Quote Originally Posted by HUbison View Post
    Fellas, I, too, think Suh is the better player. I'm just not ready to propel my own opinion past those who scout players for a living. There are plenty who think Suh is the better prospect, and (believe it or not) there are many professionals who see McCoy as the better player.
    i looked at a bleacher report that said 85 percent of all draft pundits and websites for draft days has suh as the better player, but i cant post the link

  11. #56
    Damned Ramz's Avatar
    Damned Ramz is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    58
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Suh on sports science

    when the rams take bradford what are you gonna change your name to?

    Saw suh on sports science the other day and it was ridiculous, the man is a monster

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Similar Threads

  1. NFL Players Among Sports' Leaders On Twitter
    By r8rh8rmike in forum NFL TALK
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: -06-29-2009, 10:44 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: -11-05-2005, 06:15 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: -09-05-2005, 11:12 AM
  4. Tax Bill Could Raise Sports Teams' Value
    By DJRamFan in forum ARENA
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -08-03-2004, 01:19 PM
  5. 989 Sports Quarterback Challenge
    By RamDez in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: -07-08-2004, 05:35 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •