My case against Jarvis Jones (2 Viewers)

[St. Geezy]

No offense, but I doubt the coaching staff will take your information into consideration tonight.

Oh for real? I was not aware of that.

 

[St. Widge]

No...My point is that stats earned at the NCAA level are not the end-all, be-all. You have to dissect what type of athlete and worker a player is also. Otherwise, guys like Weurfell, Davis, and every guy on the lists I posted, would be great NFL players.

I don't disagree with that. But, people don't just rely on the stats for Jones. They point out that he has great technique. Even Junior Gallette said that in a tweet.

Now, I'm not sold on Jones, mostly because I think he has physical limitations that will make him a solid, but not great player. But I just don't think showing how other people with great stats didn't become great, is relevant to whether you draft him or not.

 

[GeaxSaints44]

I doubt they'll take anyone's opinion on this site into consideration. Might as well shut the board down and quit having any discussions at all.

Having a discussion is fine, but digging out a mass amount of stats and calling the thread "my case against Jarvis Jones" is saying something. I'm all about discussing who the next Saint will be, but focusing on bashing one dude is a bit extreme.

 

[RazorOye]

No...My point is that stats earned at the NCAA level are not the end-all, be-all.

This is such a strange premise for a thread.

First, who has said the above? Who has advocated taking a guy just because of the numbers he put up in a single statistical category?

Secondly, you're selling us on the idea of not using a single criterion and the way you're doing that is by using a single criterion for your case against him. So is a singleminded approach good or bad?

Finally, I'd speculate the motive behind the thread reflects the larger obsession with statistics (even though you claim you're preaching against it while you're really perpetuating it). You dug up a stat that nobody else on the board has discussed. You did a bit of googling to come up with a largely meaningless list that you formatted in such a way that it looks meaningful and authoritative. And when called on it, you don't change the methodology. Instead, you change the number of the sample pool. That's really poor research, even for casual football conversation.

What a knot of contradictions.

Wait, it gets better.

Two more things.

First, "getting better" in the way you use it implies that it's good to begin with.

It wasn't.

Secondly, no, it doesn't get better.

 

[St. Geezy]

Why did you discredit Von Miller? He is much more of star than Elvis

Not discrediting him at all. I just wanted to point out that, while he is indeed on the list of sack leaders/unimpressive NFL players, it should be pointed out that he was a spectcular athlete, which, to my point, has led to a great NFL career thus far.

 

[cpg]

This is such a strange premise for a thread.

First, who has said the above? Who has advocated taking a guy just because of the numbers he put up in a single statistical category?

Secondly, you're selling us on the idea of not using a single criterion and the way you're doing that is by using a single criterion for your case against him. So is a singleminded approach good or bad?

Finally, I'd speculate the motive behind the thread reflects the larger obsession with statistics (even though you claim you're preaching against it while you're really perpetuating it). You dug up a stat that nobody else on the board has discussed. You did a bit of googling to come up with a largely meaningless list that you formatted in such a way that it looks meaningful and authoritative. And when called on it, you don't change the methodology. Instead, you change the number of the sample pool. That's really poor research, even for casual football conversation.

What a knot of contradictions.



Two more things.

First, "getting better" in the way you use it implies that it's good to begin with.

It wasn't.

Secondly, no, it doesn't get better.

/thread

 

[GeaxSaints44]

Oh for real? I was not aware of that.

Apparently, you weren't. You've compiled a list of stats that looks to be pretty time consuming in an attempt to bash Jones. Point being, if Coach Payton thinks that he is the guy, he's going to pull the trigger.

 

[WhoDat?DrewDat]

Not discrediting him at all. I just wanted to point out that, while he is indeed on the list of sack leaders/unimpressive NFL players, it should be pointed out that he was a spectcular athlete, which, to my point, has led to a great NFL career thus far.

Neither does athletic ability. People that did not produce in college but since they are freaks athletically get drafted high and don't produce. There are exceptions to both rules.

Who do you want at 15?

 

[bigcobra]

I like Jones, but I think this is an excellent post.

 

[St. Geezy]

This is such a strange premise for a thread.

First, who has said the above? Who has advocated taking a guy just because of the numbers he put up in a single statistical category?

Virtually every fan of Jones' only argument is "the production speaks for itself."

Secondly, you're selling us on the idea of not using a single criterion and the way you're doing that is by using a single criterion for your case against him. So is a singleminded approach good or bad?

Actually, I'm not. If you learned how to read rather than picking a part bits of pieces of posts to make your point, like you do on every single thread you participate in, you'll clearly see that I also pointed out his medical concerns and questionable work habits.

Finally, I'd speculate the motive behind the thread reflects the larger obsession with statistics (even though you claim you're preaching against it while you're really perpetuating it).

And you'd speculate wrong. I don't have an obsession with stats. I pointed out stats only because I am trying to illustrate that they don't always matter when trying to project.

You dug up a stat that nobody else on the board has discussed.

False, maybe you should read more. Everyone is in love with Jones' sack #s. Heck, its the only rebuttable for his defenders.

You did a bit of googling to come up with a largely meaningless list that you formatted in such a way that it looks meaningful and authoritative. And when called on it, you don't change the methodology. Instead, you change the number of the sample pool. That's really poor research, even for casual football conversation.

What a knot of contradictions.

Sorry you don't understand the game of football or football analysis.

 

[St. Geezy]

Apparently, you weren't. You've compiled a list of stats that looks to be pretty time consuming in an attempt to bash Jones. Point being, if Coach Payton thinks that he is the guy, he's going to pull the trigger.

Well, I am sorry for being obsessed with the NFL draft.

 

[Purple Haze]

Carlos Dunlap is very good for the Bengals and Pollack's career ended too soon because of injury

Dunlap would be even better too save for his injuries. Can't discredit that when considering them in hindsight.

 

[GeaxSaints44]

Well, I am sorry for being obsessed with the NFL draft.

You're obsessed with hating Jones. I'm pretty sure you're not discussing any other potential Saints picks.

 

[St. Geezy]

Neither does athletic ability. People that did not produce in college but since they are freaks athletically get drafted high and don't produce. There are exceptions to both rules.

Who do you want at 15?

Absolutely, and I am not denying that at all.

I like several prospects at 15: Vaccarro, Ansah (likely not there), Rhodes, the WRs, etc. Heck, I even like his teammate, Ogletree, better.

 

[Purple Haze]

Oh for real? I was not aware of that.

No need to get testy, you had to know that was coming.