My case against Jarvis Jones (1 Viewer)

[King Puppy]

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.

I think he went overboard with the stats deal. Yeah, we get that overall sack numbers aren't the most determinative statistic when it comes to drafting a DE. The multiple paragraphs are overkill and don't really do anything to bolster his case. It's almost as if we're supposed to believe gaudy sack numbers in NCAA play is a bad thing.

Anyway, what gets lost in his post is that he does finally get to real criticisms of Jones (size). As someone else mentioned, Jones isn't a super-elite, no-miss player because of physical limitations, but he looks to be a very solid, productive defensive player on the next level for some time. I'd be pleased as punch with that.

 

[bigcobra]

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

Even if that was true, so what. The thread's title didn't suggest he would be doing anything but making a case against Jones. Don't click on the thread.

 

[St. Geezy]

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

False and false.

 

[St. Widge]

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

Manipulating an obscure stat and then using inductive reasoning based on that stat to say that it proves something is football analysis?

1) All SEC sack leaders have in the past failed to be great players.

2) Jarvis Jones was the sack leader in the SEC.

3) Therefore, Jarvis Jones can't be a great NFL player.


The above is what you did and it is faulty reasoning that makes the assumption that because something happened in the past, it will always happen in the future.

And, by the way, did your Google search reveal that Derrick Thomas is the all time SEC sack leader. Should he have been avoided in the draft?

 

[bornnraisedwhodat]

If you are basing your love for Jones of his college stats, you are wrong.

If you are basing you disdain for Jones on his 40-time you are wrong.

All you can do is look at him play, watch his attributes, see how they project to the NFL game, take all the other stuff into considerationg and make a grade on him.

As you pointed out, his poor athleticsm, and reported laziness is a huge knock on him, but his tape is good. Screw the stats, he has the traits of a 2 point stance pass rusher.

With all that said, I give him a mid 1st round grade. If he had better athleticm with the same production he would easily be top 5.

 

[bud712]

You seem to be a bit obsessed with this one guy, brutha.

Personally, I think he will be a good player. He's a baller flat out. Stating that he will fail because he led the SEC in sacks is just dumb.

You say that he benefited from being on a stingy defense like Georgia and therefore his sack numbers are inflated is dumb too. Why did Mingo not benefit from the same thing?

You can't just pull out one fact and force it to fit. That's not how it is done.

 

[Javon7143]

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.

This is true.

 

[jt21]

Manipulating an obscure stat and then using inductive reasoning based on that stat to say that it proves something is football analysis?

1) All SEC sack leaders have in the past failed to be great players.

2) Jarvis Jones was the sack leader in the SEC.

3) Therefore, Jarvis Jones can't be a great NFL player.


The above is what you did and it is faulty reasoning that makes the assumption that because something happened in the past, it will always happen in the future.

And, by the way, did your Google search reveal that Derrick Thomas is the all time SEC sack leader. Should he have been avoided in the draft?

I don't think that's necessarily the conclusion he's making; it's more of a counter-point to the hordes of people who make the argument

1) Jarvis Jones had great production
2) SEC SEC SEC SEC!
3) Jarvis Jones will be a great NFL player

1+2 doesn't automatically equal 3. Production doesn't necessarily mean NFL success.

 

[St. Geezy]

Manipulating an obscure stat and then using inductive reasoning based on that stat to say that it proves something is football analysis?

1) All SEC sack leaders have in the past failed to be great players.

2) Jarvis Jones was the sack leader in the SEC.

3) Therefore, Jarvis Jones can't be a great NFL player.


The above is what you did and it is faulty reasoning that makes the assumption that because something happened in the past, it will always happen in the future.

And, by the way, did your Google search reveal that Derrick Thomas is the all time SEC sack leader. Should he have been avoided in the draft?

I am not speaking definitively at all here and acknowledged that on the post; I'm not a scout by any stretch of the imagination and am not qualified to make any definitive statements on anyone. It is merely a case against Jones.

Just because an analysis does not make a definitive statement however does not mean it is not analysis.

As for the Derrick Thomas thing, once again, it helps prove my point. Thomas is one of the greatest athletic freaks in the history of the game and ran a 4.4.

 

[St. Geezy]

You seem to be a bit obsessed with this one guy, brutha.

Personally, I think he will be a good player. He's a baller flat out. Stating that he will fail because he led the SEC in sacks is just dumb.

You say that he benefited from being on a stingy defense like Georgia and therefore his sack numbers are inflated is dumb too. Why did Mingo not benefit from the same thing?

You can't just pull out one fact and force it to fit. That's not how it is done.

When did I say this?

 

[GeaxSaints44]

Even if that was true, so what. The thread's title didn't suggest he would be doing anything but making a case against Jones. Don't click on the thread.

OK...so I'm not allowed to disagree now. Ok you win. Jones's stats are a warning sign. We should definitely avoid him.

This is a classic case of slanted reasoning, and everybody is on board with it.

 

[BuddyDeesGhost]

Go watch my man DJ Fluker pound on Jones in the bama georgia game! It's a beautiful thing!

If we have to get an SEC LB at least make it Mingo!

 

[Beerman84]

What does Jarvis Jones, Nick Fairley, Antonio Coleman, Carlos Dunlap, Marcus Howard, Jamaal Anderson, Willie Evans, and David Pollack all have in common?

Answer: They're the last 8 SEC sack leaders. Not a single Pro Bowler or impact player on that list. 2004 NCAA Division I-A College Football Individual Statistics Leaders for Defense - ESPN

Wait, it gets better. Here are the names that sit on the list of top SEC sack performances of the past decade:

Willie Evans
Jarvis Jones
Jamaal Anderson
Jadeveon Clowney
Demontre Moore
Nick Fairley
Quentin Moses
Derrick Harvey
Marcus Howard
Jake Bequette
Jouston Houston
Antonio Coleman
Wallace Gilberry
Greg Hardy
Chris Smith
Corey Lemonier
Courtney Upshaw
Carlos Dunlap
Quentin Groves
Charles Johnson
Sam Montgomery
Melvin Ingram
Carlos Dunlap
Eric Norwood
Jeremy Jarmon
Melvin Oliver

Southeastern Conference Single Season Leaders and Records for Sacks | College Football at Sports-Reference.com

There is one guy on this list, Charles Johnson, who I would deem an "impact player." Clowney should be one also, but he also has the athletic freak measureables that are necessary for the NFL game. Unfortunately, the athletic freak that also has the production a la Julius Peppers or Mario Williams or J.J. Watt, does not exist in this draft.

So no, Jones' stats do not speak for themselves. There is a reason why athletic freaks like Jordan, Mingo, and Ansah, who don't have outstanding production, are all projected to go ahead of Jones. It's because they're better NFL prospects and their games are projected to translate better to the NFL game.

There aren't any 245 pound pass rushing specialists out there that run a 4.92. And that's all Jones would be at this level, a pass rush specialist, because he darn sure isn't going to be covering anybody. James Harrison, who is slow, but not 4.92 slow, is the exception, not the rule.

We should not ignore a guy's workout #s. You can get away with not being an exceptional athlete at the college level, but you typically cannot at the NFL level.

Danny Weurfell and Troy Davis both produced in college, but neither was a great athlete and failed in the NFL. The same principle can apply to Jones. He lacks explosion, lacks pass rush moves, and quite frankly, fell into a lot of his sacks and/or had easy paths to the QB on playaction zone read plays.

I think he could potential be a decent player, but I think any chance of him being a blue chip prospect has gone out the window. If NFL scouts truly thought his game would translate perfectly from the college game to the pro game, he'd be a top 3 pick.

In most cases, to be a successful NFL player, you have to also be an exceptional athlete, and Jarvis Jones just isn't that.

Is there a chance Jones can beat the odds and be a success? Yes. But this would be a very risky pick IMHO. Between Jones' bad workout, the 4.92 speed, the reported laziness, the high bust rate of SEC sack leaders, and the spinal stenosis, I just think it is too much of a risk. I'd rather let someone else roll the dice on him.

History says at least 5 of the top 15 picks will be busts. It's about time we start trying to identify which ones have the "best" opportunity of being one of those 5. Personally, I think Jones fits the bill.

Not that you don't make an argument that makes me think, but that list is really misleading. A lot of those guys were later draft picks anyway. Dunlap's scored 20 sacks in three years, Greg Hardy just racked up 11 last year for Carolina. Fairley had 5.5 last year and he's a DT. Johnson, as you noted, is pretty good. Some of those guys are listed for no reason because they haven't played in the league yet, and a couple are on there with just one year of experience.

For a more accurate read, Jones should be compared to the other first round caliber guys. Dunlap, Harvey, Anderson and Fairley were all first rounders (I could be missing a few but didn't check all of them). Dunlap's done well. Fairley has done well at least as a pass rusher (5.5 sacks is pretty high for a DT). The other two were busts. That's a small sample size to really draw from.

And a couple of the other guys on your list far exceeded expectations. Hardy was a 6th rounder, Johnson a 3rd.Wallace Gilberry's turned into a pretty solid player, and he was undrafted.Justin Houston went in the 3rd and has been really good, 15 sacks in just two years.

 

[bigcobra]

OK...so I'm not allowed to disagree now. Ok you win. Jones's stats are a warning sign. We should definitely avoid him.

This is a classic case of slanted reasoning, and everybody is on board with it.

That post was directed to this comment you made:

"I'm pretty sure you're not discussing any other potential Saints picks"

In a thread titled My Case against Jarvis Jones, why would you expect him to discuss anything other than his case against Jarvis Jones?

 

[St. Geezy]

Not that you don't make an argument that makes me think, but that list is really misleading. A lot of those guys were later draft picks anyway. Dunlap's scored 20 sacks in three years, Greg Hardy just racked up 11 last year for Carolina. Fairley had 5.5 last year and he's a DT. Johnson, as you noted, is pretty good. Some of those guys are listed for no reason because they haven't played in the league yet, and a couple are on there with just one year of experience.

For a more accurate read, Jones should be compared to the other first round caliber guys. Dunlap, Harvey, Anderson and Fairley were all first rounders (I could be missing a few but didn't check all of them). Dunlap's done well. Fairley has done well at least as a pass rusher (5.5 sacks is pretty high for a DT). The other two were busts. That's a small sample size to really draw from.

And a couple of the other guys on your list far exceeded expectations. Hardy was a 6th rounder, Johnson a 3rd.

This is all true, and I am glad this thread is somewhat getting back on track.

However I would like to point out, prior to the combine/workout process, Jones was indeed a consensus projected top 5 pick and sat #1 on Mel Kiper's Big Board all season long.