Injuries
- Thread starter NDAFArly
- Start date
Disagree. But you are of course entitled to your opinion.
Congrats on a catch against a 4-win opponent?
You think that proves something.
Black has NOT shown that he's an impact player at the college level, because he simply hasn't done anything against a decent opponent and has only played in 3 games at all (all cupcakes)
And that player is Michigan's best WR......
Congrats on a catch against a 4-win opponent?
You think that proves something.
Black has NOT shown that he's an impact player at the college level, because he simply hasn't done anything against a decent opponent and has only played in 3 games at all (all cupcakes)
And that player is Michigan's best WR......
Florida had a good defense last year. It was their offense that sucked. And even in the worst of years, Florida is not a "cupcake".
I predict Michigan's receivers will all have better numbers this year across the board.
Florida was a disaster in all phases of the game.
They were in the BOTTOM HALF of the nation for Scoring Defense and the only decent team they kept under 30+ points was LSU.
Any 4-win team is a cupcake...and Florida absolutely qualified as such in 2017.
Michigan's WR's will certainly post better numbers in 2018, because they literally can't get any worse. But that doesn't change the fact that none of them are proven impact players and Notre Dame's WR unit is significantly better than Michigan's.
Florida defense 2017: 31st overall, 28th in passing yards allowed.
And Michigan's defense is significantly better than ND's defense.
Wrong again, on all counts.
Did yards start mattering at some point here?
2017 Florida
- 4-wins
- 69th Scoring Offense
Cupcake
And no, no it's not.
ND's Defensive Efficiency was the same as Michigan's in 2017, ND did better against quality competition, and ND returns even more than Michigan does on defense
Michigan's Defense and ND's Defense are actually quite similar
UM’s finished 9th & ND finished 10th in defense efficiency ratings.
When you break it down more, UM was actually #1 in drive efficiency but 112th in big play efficiency. ND was not very high or low in either.
The attempts to overrate a group that couldn't stop any decent about by your fan base and mods have been absolutely hysterical this off-season.
I place much of the blame on the official NCAA ranking.
https://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/2018/team/22
That's not a ranking, it's a raw stat with no context.
It has been a great source for hysterical overrating of a "good but not great" 2017 defense by your fan base.
27.5 points/game allowed against quality comp.
End of discussion.
Raw yardage is literally the worst way to view rankings. That is why NOBODY does. Everyone uses one of the three efficiency rankings that are out there.
If you look at raw yardage you would see Shea Patterson put up 350 yards & 2 TDS agsinst Auburn.
If you look at Efficiency data you would see 275 yards & both TDS came after Auburn was up 41-3 & had their 3rd string in.
Uh, no.
Even Michigan uses efficiency ratings in their matrix’s & previews.
But you prefer raw stats. Cool.
Using raw numbers shows G5 teams are better than Alabama.
No, The only thing it makes it is a stat with no context. It’s not a ranking nor is it an actual comparison of the units.
And anyone with a brain knows that.
Michigan’s 2017 defense was highly overrated, because it got abused by every quality opponent it fixed. Simple as that.
It’s possible that Michigan’s defense improves in 2018.
We’ll see.
Why did you edit your 7-5 prediction for Michigan? That showed solid college football insight.
???
I haven’t made a prediction about Michigan’s final record yet.
I won’t be able to make one confidently until I see whether the defense has improved over the overrated 2017 version, whether Shea Patterson has improved at all after failing against every quality opponent he’s ever faced, and till after seeing how bad the Michigan OL actually is.
Based on those results, I could see Michigan anywhere from 6 - 6 to 10-2.
Boykin played behind a player who could have simplified this debate.
unfortunately he could outrun everything except his past and the police
At least he didn’t go full Tommy Rees and allow a 60-year-old cop too literally chased him down…
I am not going to say who is the better receiver in football. But here is how 247sports rated ClayPool, Boykin, and DPJ
Claypool was the 33rd receiver in his class with a .9284
Boykin was the 24th rated receiver in his class with a .9177
DPJ was the 1st rated receiver in his class with a .9925
Now the ratings are just potential. Mike Hart as a 3 star RB who was undersized and probably could not run a 4.6 40 was a great RB because he was a football player. We all can come up with examples. How did Zack Zenner make a NFL roster?
Just for completeness the same recruiting agency gave Black a .9454 rating, Collins a .9378 rating, and the little slot dude Martin a .9251 rating. Bottom line is the recruiting agencies thought a lot more of DPJ and Blacks athletic measurables than Claypool and Boykin. They are certainly younger. But they have not been in the league for three years and have a handful of catches to show for it. Like I said before Charles Rogers was the last receiver in Michigan to be rated so highly. Too bad he found pot more interesting than football.
Now the fact is they might not ever get a chance as those who have an opinion are insisting that ND will be running on 60% of their snaps again. Depending on how accurate Wimbush is that is only 14-17 completions per game. Same pundits are claiming Mack is going to have a huge season. And don't forget Chris Finke. I hear he is good for 50 receptions. When there are only 180 receptions to be gotten something has got to give.
So my opinion on both Claypool and Boykin is Kelly has been recruiting super sized receivers since the beginning of time. Looking at their HS 40 times neither sniffed a 4.5 even for a rumored fake time as everyone always mentions the best. That size is good enough to beat overmatched corners. Unless either has impeccable route running, or high pointing skills, superior corners will blanket them. If six feet five inches and 4.6 40 was all you needed to beat little corners, football scores would all be 62 to 55.
DPJ has to learn route running as he came from a HS that ran the Brandon Wimbush offense. But I will take my chances on the guy who had the best SPARC score in the nation verses some dudes that have been around for a bit and not done very much yet.
Last edited:
Lol at using recruiting rankings to compare players who have already been on the field.
Your diatribes get worse and worse at every post.
Notre Dame’s WRs are MUCH better than Michigan’s, and they have been for a decade. Black would have been 3rd string at ND (and many other schools). DPJ too.
Michigan’s depth chart was just soooo terrible that they defaulted into starting positions as True Frosh.
you are aware that those "rankings " are absolutely worthless once the player enters college ?
Did you read my post? I stated it was a measurement of athletic ability. However, all things being equal a guy like Najee Harris who reaches his potential is ten times the player Mike Hart will ever be. It is a measurement of potential. If Harris and DPJ develop football skills they will be drafted in the 1st round and make tens of millions of dollars. If Claypool and Boykin max out they will be 4th round picks and might stick an NFL roster.
It is the reason why Alabama would never draft(recruit) Mike Hart. Rankings do not matter once in college. But it is still a measure of what someone could be which is why recruiting is the lifeblood of college sports. If recruiting rankings did not matter the power programs would not be interested in those players.
You couldn’t be more wrong here. Claypool has more athletic talent and size than dpj and it’s not close. He wasn’t ranked higher because he played in Canada and didn’t have a solidified position. If chase maxes out he’s an nfl pro bow player. He has that potential
you seem to assume that colleges form their lists of potential recruits from all the clearly subjective, for profit sites out there. colleges are interested in specific players due to how their abilities project to the collegiate level, not because they are on someones list. comparing college players based on high school rankings is quite stupid. claypool has more raw ability than all the other three. the question is how well do they refine it ? too many variables to make absolute assumptions.
Recruiting rankings are a terrible measure of athletic ability.
Many/most of the most athletic players in the game are 3*'s (or even 2*'s) who are ranked lowly because of their lack of development (or lack of exposure)
Just look at many/most of the most athletic players in the NFL
- Leveon Bell
- David Johnson
- Antonio Brown
- Jordy Nelson
- Gronk
- Travis Kelce
- Jimmy Graham
- Tyler Eifert
- Kahlil Mack
- Jason Pierre-Paul
- Clay Mathews
- Luke Keutchly
- Richard Sherman
- etc.
- etc.
- etc.
My understanding just like the NFL combine is scores are based on pure athletic talent. It does not matter if you run a 40, a shuttle, a standing broad jump or any agility/strength measurement. The clocks do not run slower in Canada.
I'm not saying a 6 five guy with a 4.6 40 can't be a pro bowl player in the NFL. Football skill trumps all and the greatest athlete with no football skills or ambition is still a bad football player.
On other threads everyone is talking up Alize Mack because of his fabulous SPARC score and proof he is going to blow up. The one thing I know for certain is if Mack was a Michigan recruit you would be insisting how crummy he is and that his SPARC score means nothing.
If you want to live in your world that time is different in Canada and insist Claypool is the better athlete, fine. I'll take my chances on someone with a legit timed 4.45 40, a 42 vertical, and a 52 inch standing box jump. It does not catch footballs. But if you can teach someone with that ability how to highpoint the only thing left to add is how to parachute roll out of the fall.
Maybe DPJ is not ready or maybe it is shades of Mario Manningham 2006.
you CLEARLY don't understand or care to understand the nuances of playing the position at a high level. yikes. learning those are the most difficult part. plenty of high quality receivers over the years who didn't possess elite physical skills. having them is certainly an asset but does not guarantee anything. like the guy who throws 98 but can't find the plate.
Mack is a prime example of a guy with great physical gifts and potential that hasn't generated the results for various reasons. the guys who have the top NFL combine results are not the guys who become the best "players ". see mike mamula for one. workout numbers are just one part of a large equation in the devlopment of players. using them solely to predict production is just silly and shortsighted.
Yet even the NFL throws out production and depends on measurables. The reason is that a football player who is a great athlete obliterates a football player who is not.
I would not have brought up Hart, Zenner, or Mack if I was not aware that football is won by football players not olympic athletes. Point is still a great athlete has a higher upside which is why they are coveted.
PS
My favorite Lion was Joique Bell. Perhaps not an athlete but certainly a football player.
X
The NFL does not throw out production in favor of measurable’s.
The NFL clearly puts production over measurable’s for almost every position (CB might be an exception)
However, it’s also clear that they’re willing to consider measurables.
The NFL does not throw out production in favor of measurable’s.
The NFL clearly puts production over measurable’s for almost every position (CB might be an exception)
However, it’s also clear that they’re willing to consider measurables.
that's hardly an absolute. my nieces husband was an offensive lineman in the nfl for 8 years. he's never getting in the hall of fame unless he pays admission like you and i do. he played against jj watt on more than one occasion and pretty much shut him down. zero sacks. he was hardly "obliterated ". plenty of great athletes that are ordinary players and plenty of ordinary athletes who are very good players. its the guys that can combine great physical skills with football IQ and great work ethic that become elite.
exactly. measurables are one part of a large equation. every scout to a man will tell you that the interviews and medicals are far more important info gathered at the combine than any workout measurable.
It’s incredible how those interviews and the medical exams have exploded in importance in the last 10 years.
Apart from a few positions or for a small school players, I don’t think the drills at the combine really even matter anymore.
If he stopped everyone else like JJ Watt he is in the hall of fame. He had a good day and perhaps Watt a bad day. I don't buy it that this nobody guy who was good enough to stuff everyone JJ Watt and below. Someone beat him when they were having a good day and he was having a bad day. Kudo's for staying in the league that long.
Medical is part of your athletic ability. They are now looking at what your ceiling is and what the odds of you reaching that ceiling because of a flaw in your body.
they do have a purpose and a guy can certainly help or hurt himself from a money point of view but plenty of guys who didn't perform well there have gone on to stellar careers because they are football " players " not workout champions.
Once again coming showing incredibly limited understanding of the topic.
Michael go so much beyond athletic ability, it’s not even funny.
Maurice Hurst is an example of that from last year that you should be familiar with. And underlying heart condition was a major concern, even though I had that had nothing to do with athletic ability and was totally unknown until the combine.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Football Washington Commanders announce the signing of Bo Bauer- Latest: Eric Hansen
