Jump to content
Mr.TaterSalad

Matt Patricia/Bob Quinn fired - Holmes/Cambell Hired as GM/Coach

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

There's tape of Pitts running away from Bama and Patrick Surtain,  if he is fast enough for them he is fast enough to play in the NFL.

I think Pitts is the best TE prospect the league has seen in a long time and maybe ever.   Not sure why anyone would even want to make him a WR.   Why F with something so good.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BetMGM Michigan $600 Risk-Free bet

BetMGM Michigan Sports Betting
Michigan online sports betting is now available! Start betting at BetMGM Michigan now and get a $600 risk-free bet bonus at their online sportsbook & casino.

Claim $600 risk-free bet at BetMGM Michigan Now

22 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Below is an example of why you don't draft slow players in the NFL. Tabor failed at the CB position in large part because of how slow he was and an inability to keep up with the game speed and people he was expected to cover. 

usa-today-9237496.0.jpg

You are making an assumed correlation that Tabor washed out due to his 40 time. There have been a lot of fast 40 guys who washed out and couldn't cover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Longgone said:

You are making an assumed correlation that Tabor washed out due to his 40 time. There have been a lot of fast 40 guys who washed out and couldn't cover.

All you had to do was watch Tabor and you could see he couldn't stay with anyone. I suppose you can argue that there is a lot more to 'staying on' your man than straight out 40 speed, and I would not disagree. However without at speed as a minimum, you never even get to the other skills like anticipation, direction change, balance and control at speed,  looking for the ball, etc., etc. And it's also true that for whatever reason some guys don't show their best speed at the combine; but when a guy is suspected of being too slow, and then doesn't show anything at the combine either, better to face the facts about him!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

All you had to do was watch Tabor and you could see he couldn't stay with anyone. I suppose you can argue that there is a lot more to 'staying on' your man than straight out 40 speed, and I would not disagree. However without at speed as a minimum, you never even get to the other skills like anticipation, direction change, balance and control at speed,  looking for the ball, etc., etc. And it's also true that for whatever reason some guys don't show their best speed at the combine; but when a guy is suspected of being too slow, and then doesn't show anything at the combine either, better to face the facts about him!

I believe the thought process was; he ran a poor 40, he failed, therefore he failed because of the poor 40. Stupid Lions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Longgone said:

I believe the thought process was; he ran a poor 40, he failed, therefore he failed because of the poor 40. Stupid Lions.

Having a slow 40 time for a corner or a receiver seems like a barrier to entry for me. Meaning, I'm not drafting the guy.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Having a slow 40 time for a corner or a receiver seems like a barrier to entry for me. Meaning, I'm not drafting the guy.

There probably wasn't a team in the NFL who wouldn't have drafted Tabor, and you don't get drafted if they don't believe you have the physical skills to compete, and NFL teams have analytical processes even more thorough than yours. If he didn't have the physical skills, he wouldn't have gotten opportunities after Detroit. Players no one would consider slow, like Slay and Okuda fail to in their ability to cover initially, but some can adapt and figure it out and some can't. Tabor couldn't. To say it's just because of his 40 time is just shallow thinking.

The point i am making, however, isn't whether Tabor is fast or slow, it's that the 40 time is a weak, inadequate measure of NFL speed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Longgone said:

There probably wasn't a team in the NFL who wouldn't have drafted Tabor, and you don't get drafted if they don't believe you have the physical skills to compete, and NFL teams have analytical processes even more thorough than yours. If he didn't have the physical skills, he wouldn't have gotten opportunities after Detroit. Players no one would consider slow, like Slay and Okuda fail to in their ability to cover initially, but some can adapt and figure it out and some can't. Tabor couldn't. To say it's just because of his 40 time is just shallow thinking.

The point i am making, however, isn't whether Tabor is fast or slow, it's that the 40 time is a weak, inadequate measure of NFL speed.

 

Cough cough, "boolshi...", cough cough.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 40 time is one tool in the tool box for evaluating players.  Just like the three cone and every other drill at the combine/pro days.

There are some athletic measures that show players are going to struggle to compete with the kind of athletes they have at the next level.  One of those is their straight line speed, especially for cornerbacks.

Teez couldn't do a lot of things well.  One of those things was run fast.  And the idea that a whole bunch of teams were lined up to take him is sort of belied by the fact that he fell to the Lions in late round 2 and, even then, most people considered it to be a huge reach other than the usual Lions apologists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Longgone said:

it's that the 40 time is a weak, inadequate measure of NFL speed.

 

If what you are saying is that the combine doesn't always capture a player's 'football speed' but that guy does have to have 'football speed' to play corner, I agree with that. But OTOH, if a guys goes to the combine and turns in a lousy time and for that player the combine is an fair indicator of his football speed, which it will be for many guys, then you can't ignore it either.

It basically comes down to what kind of other evidence you have that says a lousy (or great) combine time was either consistent or contradictory to other data you have developed about the player. Or TL:DR version, never pay too much attention to any single data point if you have a decent amount of data in total.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Buddha said:

The 40 time is one tool in the tool box for evaluating players.  Just like the three cone and every other drill at the combine/pro days.

There are some athletic measures that show players are going to struggle to compete with the kind of athletes they have at the next level.  One of those is their straight line speed, especially for cornerbacks.

Teez couldn't do a lot of things well.  One of those things was run fast.  And the idea that a whole bunch of teams were lined up to take him is sort of belied by the fact that he fell to the Lions in late round 2 and, even then, most people considered it to be a huge reach other than the usual Lions apologists.

I said every team would have drafted him, not necessarily in round two. The point is you don't draft anyone at all if you don't believe they have the physical tools to compete. It isn't simply the physical tools that result in success or failure at that level. Many players who have timed fast have been poor corners, and there have been many who timed slower who have performed well. The 40 is a minor guideline that is way overrated by fans. I'm not saying it has no validity, but not " if he runs a 4.4 he'll be great, but if he runs a 4.6 he'll suck" like some on here are saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gehringer_2 said:

If what you are saying is that the combine doesn't always capture a player's 'football speed' but that guy does have to have 'football speed' to play corner, I agree with that. But OTOH, if a guys goes to the combine and turns in a lousy time and for that player the combine is an fair indicator of his football speed, which it will be for many guys, then you can't ignore it either.

It basically comes down to what kind of other evidence you have that says a lousy (or great) combine time was either consistent or contradictory to other data you have developed about the player. Or TL:DR version, never pay too much attention to any single data point if you have a decent amount of data in total.

Exactly, there are a lot of skills required to play corner, and long speed is one of them, but it's less important in some schemes than others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Pitts runs a 4.6 or higher and Chase/Smith/Waddle run 4.4s or lower, what becomes the argument for taking Pitts over one of the actual receivers? To me, Pitts may have the best hands of the group considering he didn't drop a single past last season. Obviously given that he's 6'6 and the tallest of the bunch that is an asset too. But do you take a hybrid, big-bodied guy who plays between positions like Pitts over one of the true receivers just on account of height and potential red zone capabilities with offensive play calling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Keepleyland2 said:

I can't beleive you guys are talking about taking a Tight End

Not really a tight end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cruzer1 said:

Not really a tight end.

He's a tight end. 

Sure he can move around, so can Hockensen. They are still tight ends. 

The talk, your talk, of Pitts is so millen thinking. WE CAN MOVE HIM AROUND! HE'S A MATCH UP NIGHTMARE! HE'S NOT REALLY THE POSITION HE PLAYS! Hate to break it to you he is the position he plays and everybody in the NFL is good and athletic.

(not to mention there are like 3 tight ends every year that everybody describes like Pitts, well he's like a big receiver, he's not really a tight end, he's fast too. Fant comes to mind recently. That really aren't all that in the NFL)

It's a whole bunch of ifs and maybes, and could bes, and he is and all you're really doing is talking yourself into why you should take this guy and not looking at it logically and at allocation resource to realize how dumb it is to spend 2 top 10 picks in 3 years on tight ends. 

And before you get into the patriots, A) we are trying to get away from that thinking it didn't work well. B) they took their tight ends in round 2 and 4 and got a bit lucky. If we do that, OK. Not two top 10 picks in 3 years. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Keepleyland2 said:

 HE'S NOT REALLY THE POSITION HE PLAYS! Hate to break it to you he is the position he plays and everybody in the NFL is good and athletic.
 

Yeah - the position profiles in football did evolve for a reason - sometimes they become obsolete over time, but more often 'tweeners' just end up as 'tweeners' - though this may be more conventionally true on the defensive side. I guess to me the heart of the buzz with Pitts is that he is really Calvin Johnson and FL is playing him out of position. If so, why? Giant receivers *are* a great thing if they really run like receivers and if they do that is where they should play. If you take him, it's because he is going to be a wide out. That kind of speed (if he has it) would be wasted for blocking and going against LBs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in late January before the Stafford/Goff trade I said this in another thread:

On 1/27/2021 at 2:41 PM, MichiganCardinal said:

There have been talks of Pitts being moved to WR in the NFL. The rage would be hilarious, but he wouldn't be an awful pick if he makes it to our second 1st round pick. 

I was crucified in that thread, but I am glad to see some (not all) see at least where this sentiment is coming from.

At the end of the day, you get 11 players on offense. Take away your five linemen and your QB and you have five players who you can really play around with in pretty much every set out there that isn't Wildcat or trickery. While it may be "traditional" to label these players and their roles, and roll out with "2RB/2WR/1TE", "1RB/3WR/1TE", "0 RB/3WR/2TE", or whatever packages, I do not really care what you call those players. I just want them getting the ball and scoring points somehow someway.

Shortly after he was hired, Campbell said that he would use Swift in the slot. It's this kind of creativity I'm talking about and what makes me want them to at least consider Pitts if he falls to them at #7 (which I'm starting to believe he will not, making this all a moot point). I don't want to constrain ourselves into boxes because of either how college coaches used a guy or because of how things are "supposed" to be done. I just want to score points and win games. If you're telling me putting out Golladay/Swift/Hock/Pitts as 4/5 of those starting slots wouldn't help accomplish that, I don't agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

Yeah - the position profiles in football did evolve for a reason - sometimes they become obsolete over time, but more often 'tweeners' just end up as 'tweeners' - though this may be more conventionally true on the defensive side. I guess to me the heart of the buzz with Pitts is that he is really Calvin Johnson and FL is playing him out of position. If so, why? Giant receivers *are* a great thing if they really run like receivers and if they do that is where they should play. If you take him, it's because he is going to be a wide out. That kid of speed (if he has it) would be wasted for blocking and going against LBs

A 'tweener' is only a bad thing though if they can't play either position they're between. If Swift is put in the slot this fall and has some success, I don't think people will devalue him because he's a 'tweener'.

I disagree with your last four words though. I think Pitts would be phenomenal if used (in part) to match up against LBs. That's a matchup nightmare for 95% of NFL linebackers and goes to the heart of putting our best against your worst. That's not to say he couldn't also be used for a vertical route too if he has the speed he seems to have on tape, but I have no issue just gauging a team for 5-10 yards over and over and over again if the LBs can't keep up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, MichiganCardinal said:

That's a matchup nightmare for 95% of NFL linebackers and goes to the heart of putting our best against your worst.

IDK - The counter argument is that once you are beat, you are beat and you don't need WR speed to beat linebackers. Open by 6 ft vs 10 ft shouldn't make a difference to an NFL QB so it becomes a  matter of best use of resources. There is no free lunch - you are buying that extra separation from that linebacker by not upgrading some other position to a situation where greater marginal advantage was available or weakness could have been addressed. If he can beat a CB at that size I love it, if he beats a LB by 4 feet more than Hockenson already can, I'm not so sure I care if Hock is already going to be open *enough* to catch the pass. So that last question is really the key IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

IDK - The counter argument is that once you are beat, you are beat and you don't need WR speed to beat linebackers. Open by 6 ft vs 10 ft shouldn't make a difference to an NFL QB so it becomes a  matter of best use of resources. There is no free lunch - you are buying that extra separation from that linebacker by not upgrading some other position to a situation where greater marginal advantage was available. If he can beat a CB at that size I love it, if he beats a LB by 4 feet more than Hockenson already can, I'm not so sure I care if Hock is already going to be open enough to catch the pass.

I understand where you're coming from in terms of the marginal benefit if both can get open, and I think I just see it more as a variety use of weapons rather than strict 1x1 matchups. Get them worried about Hock v. LBs, then send Hock deep and cut Pitts inside. Make them bring their FS down to protect against getting gauged inside and then send them both deep and pick their poison for them. I don't see Pitts' ability to win those matchups against the LBs and his ability to (very occasionally and situationally) block as a downside though.

I ultimately agree that if the only thing Pitts can do separate from Hock is create a little more separation against the guys Hock already beats, it does not make sense. I think I see more than that in Pitts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, MichiganCardinal said:

I understand where you're coming from in terms of the marginal benefit if both can get open, and I think I just see it more as a variety use of weapons rather than strict 1x1 matchups. Get them worried about Hock v. LBs, then send Hock deep and cut Pitts inside. Make them bring their FS down to protect against getting gauged inside and then send them both deep and pick their poison for them. I don't see Pitts' ability to win those matchups against the LBs and his ability to (very occasionally and situationally) block as a downside though.

I ultimately agree that if the only thing Pitts can do separate from Hock is create a little more separation against the guys Hock already beats, it does not make sense. I think I see more than that in Pitts.

Your literally describing what iowa did with Fant and Hockensen. It really wasn't all that different than the regular offense. Now part of that is Stanley the QB sucked, but the whole scheme thing was really overrated. 

But, again, its more about roster resources. Even if Pitts is everything he can be and more, is that upgrade better than getting an outside speed WR to stretch the field? Or a linebacker who can tackle? Or a end who can get the QB?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Keepleyland2 said:

Your literally describing what iowa did with Fant and Hockensen. It really wasn't all that different than the regular offense. Now part of that is Stanley the QB sucked, but the whole scheme thing was really overrated. 

But, again, its more about roster resources. Even if Pitts is everything he can be and more, is that upgrade better than getting an outside speed WR to stretch the field? Or a linebacker who can tackle? Or a end who can get the QB?

I think Pitts is better than either Fant or Hockenson and that he could be more versatile than the Fant/Hock combo was at Iowa. That Iowa team not only had a poor QB, they also had pretty poor WRs and nothing above a sophomore at RB, and they still won 9 games. Coupled with a (scaled-up version) better QB, RB, and WRs and I have no doubt that the offense would have a lot of success. I don't think that's a scheme so much as it is just putting many offensive weapons at your QBs disposal.

I agree though it's about roster resources. To your question, I think the answer is yes. If Pitts is everything he can be and more, I think that's a HOF caliber player who approaches Calvin Johnson territory and I think that's better than the other options you named. That said, I'm also not advocating selling the farm to get Pitts, because I don't know in the here-and-now if he is everything he can be and more. Do I think he should at least be considered if he's at 7? Yes. Do I think he's the generational prospect we are selling resources to move up to get? No. There are too many other holes right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MichiganCardinal said:

I understand where you're coming from in terms of the marginal benefit if both can get open, and I think I just see it more as a variety use of weapons rather than strict 1x1 matchups. Get them worried about Hock v. LBs, then send Hock deep and cut Pitts inside. Make them bring their FS down to protect against getting gauged inside and then send them both deep and pick their poison for them. I don't see Pitts' ability to win those matchups against the LBs and his ability to (very occasionally and situationally) block as a downside though.

I ultimately agree that if the only thing Pitts can do separate from Hock is create a little more separation against the guys Hock already beats, it does not make sense. I think I see more than that in Pitts.

 

2 hours ago, MichiganCardinal said:

A 'tweener' is only a bad thing though if they can't play either position they're between. If Swift is put in the slot this fall and has some success, I don't think people will devalue him because he's a 'tweener'.

I disagree with your last four words though. I think Pitts would be phenomenal if used (in part) to match up against LBs. That's a matchup nightmare for 95% of NFL linebackers and goes to the heart of putting our best against your worst. That's not to say he couldn't also be used for a vertical route too if he has the speed he seems to have on tape, but I have no issue just gauging a team for 5-10 yards over and over and over again if the LBs can't keep up.

NFL teams are playing more nickel and dime than ever.   Many teams play them more than base now.  It’s going to be harder to get that mismatch on a LB and it definitely won’t be something that is exploitable over and over again.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Hongbit said:

 

NFL teams are playing more nickel and dime than ever.   Many teams play them more than base now.  It’s going to be harder to get that mismatch on a LB and it definitely won’t be something that is exploitable over and over again.  

Sure, you won't be able to call the same play over and over again and have success like I would in Madden 05 or NCAA 07 as a kid, but that doesn't mean you can't find creative ways to match up your best (in this hypothetical one of Pitts/Hock) against one of their worst (in this hypothetical one of the opponent's LBs).

It's getting a little in the weeds now, but as much of it is creative play calling to create those matchup nightmares as it is the right personnel. If they consistently run the dime, force their hand by establishing Swift on the ground or by not being afraid to air it out against their #4 DB. If they consistently run the nickel, force their hand again by establishing Swift, but also by spreading it out more and not being afraid to use a guy like Pitts or Swift in the slot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MichiganCardinal said:

... I agree though it's about roster resources. To your question, I think the answer is yes. If Pitts is everything he can be and more, I think that's a HOF caliber player who approaches Calvin Johnson territory and I think that's better than the other options you named...

The simple question is: 

1) Is Pitts better than Ja'Marr Chase? I think the answer is no here, so I draft Chase.

2) Is Pitts better than Devonta Smith? This is debatable as Pitts may be able to offer a few things on offense where Smith is an outside receiver only, an intermediate-to-deep threat. Which is great, I would still take Smith over ... BUT... skinny-as-a-rail Smith also worries some on the health side. Can he take an NFL beating/ avoid injuries? But what an explosive deep threat! He's Randy Moss fast so Smith still should have the advantage. This one might be a coin toss, based on what a team sees...

3) Is Pitts better then Jaylen Waddle? Great if Waddle is Tyreek Hill or Odell Beckham. But what if he's only Cordarelle Patterson or Danny Amendola? I don't know well enough to guess what Waddle turns into... This also could be a coin flip based on what a team sees...

If Pitts ran in the 4.4 to 4.5 area, I would say these questions would be more interesting. But I thought I saw that he was mostly a 4.7 type runner. That doesn't do it for me.

I go with one of the 3 wide receivers over Pitts. Any of the 3 receivers. Bottom line: I'll take the game breaking speed and look for a later round mismatch like Pitts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Michigan Sports Betting Offer

Michigan launched online sports betting and casino apps on Friday, January 22, 2021. We have selected the top Michigan sportsbooks and casinos that offer excellent bonus offers. Terms and conditions apply.

BetRivers Michigan - Get a 100% up to $250 deposit bonus at their online sportsbook & casino.

Click Here to claim $250 deposit bonus at BetRivers Michigan For Signing Up Now

FanDuel Michigan - Get a $1,000 risk-free bet at FanDuel Michigan on your first bet.

Click Here to claim $1,000 Risk-Free Bet at FanDuel Michigan

BetMGM Michigan - Get a $600 risk-free bet at the BetMGM online casino & sportsbook

Click Here to claim $600 risk-free bet at BetMGM Michigan

   


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      97,016
    • Total Posts
      3,058,417
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×
×
  • Create New...