Alendor Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 this isn't dungeons and dragons, big ten and sec both recruit from all around the country. they don't magically get a speed boost from being in the SEC. the speed issue is pretty much mostly BS made up by the media Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffer X Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 Consider the source. Some people can't debate intelligently without name calling. There's one opinion and that's theirs. NO one else is entitled to one. Name callers always show their true colors. They're generally the most bitter posters, and rarely do they have anything good to say about anything. Overall unhappy people who can't coexist on a message board. Normal people don't call people names to their face very often over a football discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballpeen Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 Good gosh....any difference in the conferences isn't in speed or power...they all attract quality players....it's in the depth of the individual teams and the entire conference. Bottom line is more kids want to play in places where the weather isn't crap 6 of the 9 months they are in school, thus SEC schools tend to get more of the blue chippers v. Big 10 schools. It's more likely a kid from Ohio or Minnesota is going to head to Florida or South Carolina v. the other kids heading up north. That is why when you compare the conferences, you really need to look at the bottom tier schools in each...and that is where the big difference occurs, and what in the end most of the time makes the top teams slightly better...they play better, deeper teams week after week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldcrow1945 Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 Good gosh....any difference in the conferences isn't in speed or power...they all attract quality players....it's in the depth of the individual teams and the entire conference. Bottom line is more kids want to play in places where the weather isn't crap 6 of the 9 months they are in school, thus SEC schools tend to get more of the blue chippers v. Big 10 schools. I wouldn't disagree with that. But I'd also add that there are just a lot of good football players now in the south and they simply stay home. Of the 97 players on the Florida Gator roster only three are from Northern states. Two from NJ and one from CT. One the other hand OSU has 15 southern players on their roster, 7 of them from Florida. (With another one this year in Jamaal Berry. The state of Florida's #1 Running back) The states which have the most high quailty football players according to recruiting numbers are as follows. Florida Texas California Georgia Ohio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffer X Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 I wouldn't disagree with that. But I'd also add that there are just a lot of good football players now in the south and they simply stay home. Of the 97 players on the Florida Gator roster only three are from Northern states. Two from NJ and one from CT. One the other hand OSU has 15 southern players on their roster, 7 of them from Florida. (With another one this year in Jamaal Berry. The state of Florida's #1 Running back) The states which have the most high quailty football players according to recruiting numbers are as follows. Florida Texas California Georgia Ohio I think the SEC swing has went the way it has simply because we are losing population up north. Pluto keeps harping on this and I can't disagree with him. More and more people are leaving the midwest, so not only are they leaving here they are moving to the south and giving them more of an influx of talent. I still say it's cyclical and there is no doubt that the Big Ten is down right now, but they still can put out as good a players as anybody else, that will never be in question. The scheduling thing is a joke. SEC teams play totally weak teams non conference. OSU is keeping lots of games in state to help fellow state schools. I also believe the Big 12 has benefited from population movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aloysius Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 But, weren't we talking LBs and not WR. How about LBs from the Big Ten vs LBs from the SEC. Ask, and you shall receive: Average 40 times: SEC: 4.68 Ten: 4.71 Note: I included all LB's who were drafted, not just ones picked in the top four rounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aloysius Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 That is five one hundreds faster! Five one hundreds of one second!!! Talk about insignificant! That is literally a photo finish!!! It proves just the opposite Aloy. If you think five one hundreds lends credence to there not being any similarity then this discussion is not worth it's while. I'm ROTFL here! Yeah, it's truly hilarious Not sure that a .05 second difference is completely insignificant, but I'll put that aside for now. What you didn't see from looking at those numbers is that there were a lot more 4.3 guys among the SEC crew. While only 33% of the Big Ten guys registered times below 4.4, a full 50% of the SEC guys timed in the 4.3's. Because of the ridiculously small sample size, it's hard to tell whether that's indicative of anything, but it at least suggests that elite speed is more common in the SEC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aloysius Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 Maybe not the next LT or Seau but very well could be the next Brian Urlacker. Seems that's who most scouts compare him to. To be honest, I haven't heard that comparison used in a long time. nfldraftscout compares him to Rob Morris (which I think is a little too uncharitable). Urlacher possesses a rare combination of size and athleticism: he can cover the deep zone like a Tampa 2 ILB must do, but he's also big & strong enough to stuff the run. I like Laurinaitis, but I don't think he possesses those same traits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldcrow1945 Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 Yeah, it's truly hilarious Not sure that a .05 second difference is completely insignificant, but I'll put that aside for now. What you didn't see from looking at those numbers is that there were a lot more 4.3 guys among the SEC crew. While only 33% of the Big Ten guys registered times below 4.4, a full 50% of the SEC guys timed in the 4.3's. Because of the ridiculously small sample size, it's hard to tell whether that's indicative of anything, but it at least suggests that elite speed is more common in the SEC. How did you get 50% of 21? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aloysius Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 nfldraftscout only had Combine 40 times for 14 of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldcrow1945 Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 Yeah, it's truly hilarious Not sure that a .05 second difference is completely insignificant, but I'll put that aside for now. What you didn't see from looking at those numbers is that there were a lot more 4.3 guys among the SEC crew. While only 33% of the Big Ten guys registered times below 4.4, a full 50% of the SEC guys timed in the 4.3's. Because of the ridiculously small sample size, it's hard to tell whether that's indicative of anything, but it at least suggests that elite speed is more common in the SEC. Where are you getting these past results? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeadWombat Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 You guys are killing me.... arguing about such insignificant facts like the .03 sec difference in SEC and Big Ten running times.... Thats like.... what, six tenths of a percent? By all scientific standards, any difference that small is absolutely rubbish. Over-analyzation here is running rampant. Also, I thought we were talking about James Laurinaitis. Speaking of which, JL is a fantastic player with a great head on his shoulders, but with our draft slots, it will be hard to take him: 5th place is too early for us and we have other issues to tend to, and honestly I think he will be gone by the time our next pick comes around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldcrow1945 Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 nfldraftscout only had Combine 40 times for 14 of them. 14 from the SEC? How many from the Big Ten? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aloysius Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 Look here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldcrow1945 Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 Look here So your research was on 7 players vs. 4 players And you said this lends credence to there being a difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldcrow1945 Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 You guys are killing me.... arguing about such insignificant facts like the .03 sec difference in SEC and Big Ten running times.... Thats like.... what, six tenths of a percent? By all scientific standards, any difference that small is absolutely rubbish. Over-analyzation here is running rampant. Also, I thought we were talking about James Laurinaitis. This has been my point. That the speed difference is insignificant at least and ridiculous at most. But Aloy said that five hundreds of a second lends credence to there being a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aloysius Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 You wanted guys taken in the top four rounds in the last seven years, which restricted the sample size. Anyway, here is what I compiled. Feel free to draw your own conclusions from it. Corners taken SEC: 18 Big Ten: 18 --> 4.4442 '08 Justin King: 4.31 Tracy Porter: 4.37 Charles Godfrey: 4.43 Jack Ikegwuono '07 Leon Hall: 4.39 '06 Ashton Youboty Alan Zemaitis '05 Marlin Jackson: 4.52 Kelvin Hayden: 4.45 Scott Starks: 4.37 Dustin Fox: 4.43 '04 Chris Gamble Jeremy LeSueur: 4.53 Rich Gardner: 4.46 '03 Eugene Wilson: 4.48 Bryan Scott '02 Derek Ross: 4.59 Mike Echols SEC: 4.4078 (out of 14) '08 Patrick Lee: 4.41 Chevis Jackson: 4.52 Jonathan Wilhite: 4.38 '07 Chris Houston: 4.32 Jonathan Wade: 4.36 Fred Bennett: 4.46 '06 Jonathan Joseph: 4.31 Tim Jennings: 4.32 '05 Carlos Rogers: 4.44 Corey Webster Travis Daniels: 4.54 '04 Dunta Robinson: 4.34 Ahmad Carroll: 4.34 Keiwan Ratliff Bruce Thornton: 4.50 '03 '02 Lito Sheppard Sheldon Brown: 4.47 Andre Goodman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeadWombat Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 You wanted guys taken in the top four rounds in the last seven years, which restricted the sample size. Anyway, here is what I compiled. Feel free to draw your own conclusions from it. After exhaustively researching and analyzing the material, my conclusions are..... None of it matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aloysius Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 But Aloy said that five hundreds of a second lends credence to there being a difference. Honestly, I don't care all that much because I'm not a partisan to either side of this debate. But I though the numbers at least left the question open, especially because your 4th round cutoff made little sense. Who knows what direction that difference would head if you included all cornerbacks drafted? I could go ahead and re-crunch the numbers using all drafted cornerbacks, but I won't because like ballpeen, I suspect this doesn't mean very much. It was more of a curious intellectual exercise for me. I'm not convinced you actually give a shit about what the results would be. You're already set in your opinions, so any contrary results would just get a rolling eyes emoticon - which is fine, but then there's no use discussing it with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canton Mike Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 I have quickly glanced at all this "draft & speed" stuff. Here is my question: WHERE (NFL production wise) are these players 3-4 YEARS after they were drafted? Are they starting? Still in the league? Productive as starters or backups? At that point, they should all have had opportunities to establish themselves in the NFL. Just something else to muddy the waters. I certainly (with a job & 7 Grandkids & an upcoming wedding) don't have time to research it! Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sez.EJ Posted March 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 QUOTE (Sez.EJ @ Mar 14 2009, 03:51 PM) It just kills my how everyone gets so off track on these threads.. I could give a flying crap about what school he's from.. I am only interested in where he stands with the Browns and will he be a good player for us if we draft him and speculating on what spot we might try to get him.. Focus guys focus.. Threads go where they may, that's the nature of the board. Why do you always seem to be lecturing people anyway? Riffer: feeling guilty? Feeling picked on? not sure why you are even the one who commented as your last post was 7 threads above my comment about getting off track. I am not sure where the "lecture" came in.. Do you still live with your parents? Besides my post did seem to kick everyone back on track for a while. where laureinitis stands in the draft... So sue me if I like the thread to stay on topic . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewEraDawg Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 Riffer: feeling guilty? Feeling picked on? not sure why you are even the one who commented as your last post was 7 threads above my comment about getting off track. .... Besides my post did seem to kick everyone back on track for a while. where laureinitis stands in the draft... So sue me if I like the thread to stay on topic . Are you saying you are the most misunderstood member here , or just the most picked on . I have lost track of which . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldcrow1945 Posted March 15, 2009 Report Share Posted March 15, 2009 Honestly, I don't care all that much because I'm not a partisan to either side of this debate. But I though the numbers at least left the question open, especially because your 4th round cutoff made little sense. /list] C'mon Aloy, I don't think you are being genuine here. When you say that five one hundreds of second lends credence to the fact that the SEC is faster, then you are clearly taking a side. Anyone that hadn't taken a side would've looked at those numbers and said "It's a virtual wash". To a college or NFL scout, a WR running a 4.33 as compared to one running a 4.38, it would make no difference at all. None. At that point it's his football ability. The post that started this whole thing said the Big Ten was "notoriously slow" and that the SEC was known for speed and the Big Ten was not. I went on to contend this and to prove that this is not the case. I think I clearly did that. A five one hundreds of second slower does not make anyone "Notoriously slow". If the original poster who mentioned speed wanted to say SEC players are more athletic or better football players then that is his opinion and there is not one thing anyone can do to dispute that. But if you want to claim they are faster then I know that can be proven to be false. You said I'm set in my opinion. It's not an opinion. The numbers are right there. Five one hundreds of one second. I explained the 4th round thing and you may not have seen it or still don't think it makes sense. I went with the first four rounds because it's those players that are generally accepted to be the ones that will contribute as a starter. I just didn't look at times beyond the 4th because those players simply are not very highly thought of. Their chances of making the team are not good. I wanted to look at those players that are expected to be productive NFL players. I think if you ask GM's they would tell you that starting around round 5 they aren't excpecting much from a player. He's a long shot. Do they make it? Sure they do. But the odds are against after about round 4. So in the end, I wanted to measure those guys of true NFL talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YtownBrownsBacker Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 I waqnt football players, with football speed, not shorts and tee shirt speed. I want guys with heart, dedication and a love for the game. Which conference is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTBH Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 This name calling makes you come across as a real jerk. I suspect the perception is true. It's meant as a joke when I call people an OSU fag. It's meant as a take-off on on the whole BQ fag thing. My bad for realizing that requied too much thing. My God, did this whole board get an injection of estrogen or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted March 16, 2009 Report Share Posted March 16, 2009 That is five one hundreds faster! Five one hundreds of one second!!! Talk about insignificant! That is literally a photo finish!!! It proves just the opposite Aloy. If you think five one hundreds lends credence to there not being any similarity then this discussion is not worth it's while. I'm ROTFL here! I'd venture to say that it is not possible to accurately measure hundredths of a second. Even at the NFL combine. Also the average could be skewed by one real fast guy or one real slow guy. If the Big Ten has 15 players that are faster than those in SEC, but the SEC has 5 really fast players, what conference is really faster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.