My case against Jarvis Jones

[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.

 

[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!