Patrick Peterson looked WAY better

[wartyOne]

Well, they do have a pretty good pass rush to help 'em at LSU. I actually wasn't as big of a fan of Claiborne as most were this year, but he'll still probably be a good one.

Let's see if I have any of those...

Oh yeah! I'm very suspicious of USC QBs (another reason I'm not huge on Barkley). I'm also not big on USC D-linemen ('roids), although I did love me some Nick Perry.

I'm suspicious of Florida State DEs (although Bjorn Werner is one tough ombre).

I'm suspicious of any player who goes to UCLA. Not exactly a powerhouse for NFL players in the last decade (when most people had him as a top 20 pick).

I also share Clyde's suspicion of any Clemson Tiger. Alhtough he loves Sammy Watkins (probably for good reasons).

I was highly suspicious of Nebraska Cbs lately too. Thought the Fresh Prince was overrated & Alphonzo Denard was one of the most overrated players in college football.

Word. With the exception of Palmer's one glory year, the SC QB's are largely garbage.

I do like Hawaii LG's, though. They awesome.

 

[wartyOne]

the above opinion is fine, just wanted to make a small comment on how its generalized per school. taking the positive side, its similar to the past with Penn St., they were called "LB U".

anyways, NFL teams should just evaluate individuals regardless of school. if a team's scouting staff does a good job, they'll place correct values on prospects.

Yes and no. Certain coaches produce certain traits in their players. Some are desirable in the NFL (as in the case of Penn State LB's), some are terrible (as in the case of Florida QB's).

Of course there are exceptions, but I wouldn't say those exceptions "prove" or "disprove" a generalization. Just like we draft for scheme, college programs recruit the same way. What works as a QB at Florida, isn't necessarily going to work in the NFL.

 

[ChrisPozz]

I suppose I could see someone making a debate for being suspicious of a position group or groups that come from a school when they were developed by the same coaching staff/system over a period of time.

If say, for instance, you were leary of taking a Mack Brown WR because you could point out that Mack Brown (and company), who has been Texas' head coach since '98, developed WRs never pan out in the NFL. I could maybe see someone trying to make an argument that way even though his position coaches have changed over the years. Not saying that Mack Brown WRs is the best example. I just threw out a name that's been in place for a while and a random position group.

What I'm having trouble trying to wrap my head around is being leary of a player because he comes from a school that produces a high number of failures at a position if there have been multiple head coaches and different systems in place over a period of time.

I just don't know how I would begin to FAIRLY argue being leary of taking a player from a school who has produced a number of failures/disappointments from a position group if that school has had multiple coaches and multiple systems put into place.

Does any of that make sense? Am I misunderstanding anybody's point? Am I off base?

 

[NinerSickness]

I'm a big fan of stereotypes. I believe almost all of 'em. If they didn't have a lot of truth to them they wouldn't be stereotypes. However, I know there are always exceptions. So of course one has to objectively analyze a player regardless of the school he attends; I just keep the stereotype in mind when I do.

 

[deep9er]

Word. With the exception of Palmer's one glory year, the SC QB's are largely garbage.

I do like Hawaii LG's, though. They awesome.

yeah, O-line players from Hawaii had it going a little bit, but lately not much. :-(

"going a little bit" in relation to Hawaii, that is.

 

[deep9er]

I suppose I could see someone making a debate for being suspicious of a position group or groups that come from a school when they were developed by the same coaching staff/system over a period of time.

If say, for instance, you were leary of taking a Mack Brown WR because you could point out that Mack Brown (and company), who has been Texas' head coach since '98, developed WRs never pan out in the NFL. I could maybe see someone trying to make an argument that way even though his position coaches have changed over the years. Not saying that Mack Brown WRs is the best example. I just threw out a name that's been in place for a while and a random position group.

What I'm having trouble trying to wrap my head around is being leary of a player because he comes from a school that produces a high number of failures at a position if there have been multiple head coaches and different systems in place over a period of time.

I just don't know how I would begin to FAIRLY argue being leary of taking a player from a school who has produced a number of failures/disappointments from a position group if that school has had multiple coaches and multiple systems put into place.

Does any of that make sense? Am I misunderstanding anybody's point? Am I off base?

i get the gist...i think?

anyways, there's no specifics here, guess i just wanted to say no NFL team should "ignore" a player just because of the reputation of a position, from a certain school. or maybe shouldn't automatically "downgrade" is a better way to say it?

 

[deep9er]

I'm a big fan of stereotypes. I believe almost all of 'em. If they didn't have a lot of truth to them they wouldn't be stereotypes. However, I know there are always exceptions. So of course one has to objectively analyze a player regardless of the school he attends; I just keep the stereotype in mind when I do.

yeah again, its fine.

i also like to use "adages" which is sort of like stereotypes.

 

[BINGO]

I suppose I could see someone making a debate for being suspicious of a position group or groups that come from a school when they were developed by the same coaching staff/system over a period of time.

If say, for instance, you were leary of taking a Mack Brown WR because you could point out that Mack Brown (and company), who has been Texas' head coach since '98, developed WRs never pan out in the NFL. I could maybe see someone trying to make an argument that way even though his position coaches have changed over the years. Not saying that Mack Brown WRs is the best example. I just threw out a name that's been in place for a while and a random position group.

What I'm having trouble trying to wrap my head around is being leary of a player because he comes from a school that produces a high number of failures at a position if there have been multiple head coaches and different systems in place over a period of time.

I just don't know how I would begin to FAIRLY argue being leary of taking a player from a school who has produced a number of failures/disappointments from a position group if that school has had multiple coaches and multiple systems put into place.

Does any of that make sense? Am I misunderstanding anybody's point? Am I off base?

Great Post Pozz!