more on scherf

[redskinsfan]

Brandon Scherff, Iowa
Measurables: 6-5, 319, 5.05
Fast Fact: Biggest hands in the draft at 11 inches (that's almost a foot)
Scouts Say: "Iowa just turns them out. He's a lot like (Bryan) Bulaga (of Green Bay and Iowa), but maybe a little better.'' ..."He's real tough, real strong and he can run for a big guy. He can also be a mauler. I like him.'' ... "He's real good. He can play left tackle and be good. He can play right tackle and be great.'' ..."He should be the first to go. He's a big man who can really move and he's tough as nails.''

2015 NFL Draft: Ranking the offensive linemen; is Brandon Scherff the best? | NJ.com

So, why are these experts good to cite to on Scherff, but not for Fowler?

 

[Sharkinva]

So, why are these experts good to cite to on Scherff, but not for Fowler?

I never said any of thier assesments couldnt be trusted. I have said all along that I have looked at assesments as well as watched games that both players have played in and came to my conclusions.

I mearly posted that particular clip to point out that the absolute that every one thinks all Scherff is good for is OG is slightly flawed.

 

[skinsdad62]

So, why are these experts good to cite to on Scherff, but not for Fowler?

so why are scherfs faults more magnified then fowler 's and the other OLB's

 

[redskinsfan]

so why are scherfs faults more magnified then fowler 's and the other OLB's

I'm not sure they are.

 

[redskinsfan]

I never said any of thier assesments couldnt be trusted. I have said all along that I have looked at assesments as well as watched games that both players have played in and came to my conclusions.

I mearly posted that particular clip to point out that the absolute that every one thinks all Scherff is good for is OG is slightly flawed.

That is certainly the impression both others and I got. Fowler has gotten basically glowing reviews from the pundits. To be sure, he's not perfect, but you were debating the merits of what others thought about him based on your own analysis. And while I've seen some suggesting that Scherff could play OT, most don't. That includes those pundits I trust, those I think are idiots, and others like that Iowa fan who concurred in those assessments.

 

[Sharkinva]

That is certainly the impression both others and I got. Fowler has gotten basically glowing reviews from the pundits. To be sure, he's not perfect, but you were debating the merits of what others thought about him based on your own analysis. And while I've seen some suggesting that Scherff could play OT, most don't. That includes those pundits I trust, those I think are idiots, and others like that Iowa fan who concurred in those assessments.

And again I will simply point out that I think Pass Rushers in generall get over rated by Pundits and for the most part flas tend to get glossed over. Basically if you put up sacks but were rarely tasked with coverage, or were never tasked with contain it tends to be ignored. Se Arrington Lavar, and Orakpo Brian for prime examples. Now we are going to take another D-lineman and convert him to OLB, but he is apparently a top OLB prospect??

So as I said, I take ALL pass rusher reports with a heavy grain of salt because the position tends to be over rated these days any way. Every year there is the next great sack artist in the top five.

 

[redskinsfan]

And again I will simply point out that I think Pass Rushers in generall get over rated by Pundits and for the most part flas tend to get glossed over. Basically if you put up sacks but were rarely tasked with coverage, or were never tasked with contain it tends to be ignored. Se Arrington Lavar, and Orakpo Brian for prime examples. Now we are going to take another D-lineman and convert him to OLB, but he is apparently a top OLB prospect??

So as I said, I take ALL pass rusher reports with a heavy grain of salt because the position tends to be over rated these days any way. Every year there is the next great sack artist in the top five.

I've seen plenty of pass rushers with less than glowing reviews or ones that showed they're potentially one-dimensional. Dwight Freeney ring a bell? From all that I've read, Fowler played in multiple spots in Florida's defense. He was thus more the OLB that we're looking for and someone who can play immediately in Joe Barry's defense.

 

[skinsdad62]

how many times do i have to see a gholston or dion jordan bust out before i start to question the evaluators ?

next in line could be clowney

fowler has the same flaw murphy has in his 1st step and only one pas rush move like Rak

we ran rak out of town even though he had 3 pro bowls and we are taking an olb because we didnt like murphy as a pass rusher yet we are taking the same type of guy and calling him a savior ?

the same group would have us take an injury prone lightweight druggy , a lightweight OLb who cant stop the run and a small de we have to convert who cant rush from the 2 point stance and cant cover

and we say they are never wrong and are experts with no agenda

 

[redskinsfan]

how many times do i have to see a gholston or dion jordan bust out before i start to question the evaluators ?

next in line could be clowney

fowler has the same flaw murphy has in his 1st step and only one pas rush move like Rak

we ran rak out of town even though he had 3 pro bowls and we are taking an olb because we didnt like murphy as a pass rusher yet we are taking the same type of guy and calling him a savior ?

the same group would have us take an injury prone lightweight druggy , a lightweight OLb who cant stop the run and a small de we have to convert who cant rush from the 2 point stance and cant cover

and we say they are never wrong and are experts with no agenda

And what makes you, shark, I or anyone else here better than they are? Some of these guys are straight shooters and generally can be trusted. But when nearly all pundits are issuing glowing reviews on Fowler, some of whom have proven track records, why do you think anyone of us would have better insight than them?

It's like saying if I said to my doctor that because he's been wrong before, I'm going to diagnose myself instead because I've got access to Wikipedia and WebMD.

 

[skinsdad62]

And what makes you, shark, I or anyone else here better than they are? Some of these guys are straight shooters and generally can be trusted. But when nearly all pundits are issuing glowing reviews on Fowler, some of whom have proven track records, why do you think anyone of us would have better insight than them?

It's like saying if I said to my doctor that because he's been wrong before, I'm going to diagnose myself instead because I've got access to Wikipedia and WebMD.

they arent better . that is my point . they dont go to huck a buck university and scout players . they see the same things we see and then write about it

saying i am "just as good " doesnt mean better

and nearly all pundits issued glowing reviews of every bust ever drafted

 

[redskinsfan]

they arent better . that is my point . they dont go to huck a buck university and scout players . they see the same things we see and then write about it

saying i am "just as good " doesnt mean better

and nearly all pundits issued glowing reviews of every bust ever drafted

You're just wrong on that. They watch more tape, in some cases have background in scouting because they did it before, have reliable sources to access secondary information, and have time and money to blow doing it all. For instance, no one here is generally as good as Greg Cosell. Not even close. Is he wrong sometimes? Yes. Are there specific instances where I disagree with him (e.g., his view on Leonard Williams)? Of course. But overall, I'll defer to him.

And like I've said umpteen times, it's not just one or two pundits saying this about Fowler, it's just about everyone.

 

[skinsdad62]

You're just wrong on that. They watch more tape, in some cases have background in scouting because they did it before, have reliable sources to access secondary information, and have time and money to blow doing it all. For instance, no one here is generally as good as Greg Cosell. Not even close. Is he wrong sometimes? Yes. Are there specific instances where I disagree with him (e.g., his view on Leonard Williams)? Of course. But overall, I'll defer to him.

And like I've said umpteen times, it's not just one or two pundits saying this about Fowler, it's just about everyone.

i dont defer to anyone unless they can make a case and they are as wrong as i am

 

[redskinsfan]

i dont defer to anyone unless they can make a case and they are as wrong as i am

Sorry but that's just arrogance then. People like Greg Cosell have done this competently for years and not at least give them some deference is really silly.

 

[Sharkinva]

You're just wrong on that. They watch more tape, in some cases have background in scouting because they did it before, have reliable sources to access secondary information, and have time and money to blow doing it all. For instance, no one here is generally as good as Greg Cosell. Not even close. Is he wrong sometimes? Yes. Are there specific instances where I disagree with him (e.g., his view on Leonard Williams)? Of course. But overall, I'll defer to him.

And like I've said umpteen times, it's not just one or two pundits saying this about Fowler, it's just about everyone.

Dude, you act as if these guys eat sleep and breath watching tape and going over players. And maybe they do. But you are leaving out one serious flaw in that assumption. There are over 500 draftable players a year come draft time. But I will throw you a bone and say you concentrate on the top 150 players.

1 hour of broadcast tape on each one is 150 hours of tape (Thats edited down from broadcast time)
Add in another 2 hours of coaches tape on each one (1 hour from each side) 300 hours

so thats 450 hours of tape per week for a single season times 12 is 5400 hours of tape. And thats assuming they skip bowl games.

So lets do the math.... 5400/24=225

So to watch all the tape on just the top 150 players in a draft would take 225 days of watching tape NONSTOP.

That leaves them 140 days to eat, sleep, boink the wife, boyfriend, girlfriend or what ever else.

Dude.. NO one is that dedicated, especially when they know if they are DEAD wrong in two years, they will still have people eating up what ever they say in two years any way.

I contend that group think plays much more a role than all these guys spending HOURS on end forming their opinion of a player. Most likely take a sampling of each players games, watch the tape, form an opinion, look to see what every one else is saying and kinda fall in line with the accepted norm. You may have some variance like Mel says Winston is the best QB and Mayock says its Mariota. But these guys are human, have a life outside of this and realize that if they are flat ass dead wrong, in two years no one will remember any way.

[Steps off soap box]

 

[skinsdad62]

Sorry but that's just arrogance then. People like Greg Cosell have done this competently for years and not at least give them some deference is really silly.

call it what you want , fact is these guys arent gods like you make them out to be and i will debate their findings any time period . you want to be a blind sheep then that is on you but dont expect me to be

 

[redskinsfan]

Dude, you act as if these guys eat sleep and breath watching tape and going over players. And maybe they do. But you are leaving out one serious flaw in that assumption. There are over 500 draftable players a year come draft time. But I will throw you a bone and say you concentrate on the top 150 players.

1 hour of broadcast tape on each one is 150 hours of tape (Thats edited down from broadcast time)
Add in another 2 hours of coaches tape on each one (1 hour from each side) 300 hours

so thats 450 hours of tape per week for a single season times 12 is 5400 hours of tape. And thats assuming they skip bowl games.

So lets do the math.... 5400/24=225

So to watch all the tape on just the top 150 players in a draft would take 225 days of watching tape NONSTOP.

That leaves them 140 days to eat, sleep, boink the wife, boyfriend, girlfriend or what ever else.

Dude.. NO one is that dedicated, especially when they know if they are DEAD wrong in two years, they will still have people eating up what ever they say in two years any way.

I contend that group think plays much more a role than all these guys spending HOURS on end forming their opinion of a player. Most likely take a sampling of each players games, watch the tape, form an opinion, look to see what every one else is saying and kinda fall in line with the accepted norm. You may have some variance like Mel says Winston is the best QB and Mayock says its Mariota. But these guys are human, have a life outside of this and realize that if they are flat ass dead wrong, in two years no one will remember any way.

[Steps off soap box]

You missed an important point I noted that addresses this point. And that's the fact that they can consult secondary sources (e.g., other reliable scouts) that can offer them input on players. But, as you noted, the key ones are those at the top of the draft. And for those, they've done tons of work on them.

Whatever the case may be, the issue here is whether any one of us can compare to the skillset, experience, resources, and expertise they've got. We clearly can't. That's kind of like saying that because I've played Call Of Duty, I know as much about being a marine as you.

 

[redskinsfan]

call it what you want , fact is these guys arent gods like you make them out to be and i will debate their findings any time period . you want to be a blind sheep then that is on you but dont expect me to be

They are not gods, but there's a difference between uncritical approval of their methods and conclusions and deferral. The latter is like the blind faith Scientologists extend to their great god Xenu. Deferral is something where you presume someone is correct but reserve the right to exercise some healthy skepticism of what they're offering. Deferral, however, is not something where you claim some equal footing with experts like Cosell on. If you're doing that, that's a whole different conversation.

 

[Sharkinva]

And next you will tell me that because some one is in Public office, they have higher civic virtue than the average citizen, a backyard Mechanic could never out tune a certified Ford Mechanic. Dude, I realize they have a Skill set, but it is in no way exclusive. Yes they have more resources. But they also all tend to all say basically the same thing. And its far from them all coming to this grand conclusion as to who will be good and who wont. They basically feed off each other. Its also why they all basically come to the same conclusions more or less. And IM going to call it now, one of these Pass Rushers is going to be a complete and total bust.. take your pick Beasley or Fowler.

 

[redskinsfan]

And next you will tell me that because some one is in Public office, they have higher civic virtue than the average citizen, a backyard Mechanic could never out tune a certified Ford Mechanic. Dude, I realize they have a Skill set, but it is in no way exclusive. Yes they have more resources. But they also all tend to all say basically the same thing. And its far from them all coming to this grand conclusion as to who will be good and who wont. They basically feed off each other. Its also why they all basically come to the same conclusions more or less. And IM going to call it now, one of these Pass Rushers is going to be a complete and total bust.. take your pick Beasley or Fowler.

Come on, the public servant thing is a ridiculous analogy. My point here is that where you've got people who've developed an expertise in a certain field, has a developed track record, and has the resources and time to devote to exploiting that expertise, you've got someone that deserves some deference. The challenges be made regarding Fowler are absurd. Nearly everyone believes he's the real deal, and because some of those that are offering that assessment up have that expertise, they deserve their due.

If you've got medical issues with joint pain and you visit Kerlan & Jobe (the doctors that service teams like the Dodgers) and they give you advice on the pain, do you question it? Of course not, unless there's something absolutely clearly wrong with their analysis. With Fowler, there's no such thing and it's really the height of arrogance for anyone here to say they know more than folks like Cosell.

Will Fowler bust? Maybe. But even if he does, you can't ding Cosell's analysis if he busts for reasons that are unforeseeable (e.g., he decides to espouse religion and devotes more time to that instead of football). In the end, there's a reason why some of the pundits are held in high regard. And it's preposterous to think people on a message board can rise to the same level as them.

 

[Sharkinva]

Come on, the public servant thing is a ridiculous analogy. My point here is that where you've got people who've developed an expertise in a certain field, has a developed track record, and has the resources and time to devote to exploiting that expertise, you've got someone that deserves some deference. The challenges be made regarding Fowler are absurd. Nearly everyone believes he's the real deal, and because some of those that are offering that assessment up have that expertise, they deserve their due.

If you've got medical issues with joint pain and you visit Kerlan & Jobe (the doctors that service teams like the Dodgers) and they give you advice on the pain, do you question it? Of course not, unless there's something absolutely clearly wrong with their analysis. With Fowler, there's no such thing and it's really the height of arrogance for anyone here to say they know more than folks like Cosell.

Will Fowler bust? Maybe. But even if he does, you can't ding Cosell's analysis if he busts for reasons that are unforeseeable (e.g., he decides to espouse religion and devotes more time to that instead of football). In the end, there's a reason why some of the pundits are held in high regard. And it's preposterous to think people on a message board can rise to the same level as them.

Sure dude, we can defer to them... to a degree. But something tells me if the consensus from the pundits was that we were going to draft Scherff, your level of deferment would drop dramatically.