PDA

View Full Version : OFFICAL 2012 NFL COMBINE THREAD (anything and everything combine)



Pages : 1 [2]

TheEnigma
02-28-2012, 08:44 AM
The Flynn to Browns idea isn't that farfetched when you think about it. After all, there is the connection between Holmgren and Green Bay.

nycsportzfan
02-28-2012, 08:45 AM
They might be in the mix, but many feel that Flynn is that good. So if they Browns did too, they could draft a stud WR and get more help later in the 1st. Also, can't they go and Sign Mario Manningham or someone? There are guys on the FA market, they could sign as well.. Not to mention, Greg Little showed alot of promise as a possesion reciever, and if u teamed up Little with say Mario, you'd have a nice little Duo of WR's, with a bit of depth with massaquoi...

nycsportzfan
02-28-2012, 08:48 AM
The Flynn to Browns idea isn't that farfetched when you think about it. After all, there is the connection between Holmgren and Green Bay. Oh, i agree, but the browns would be crazy to not go with RG3, as its gonna cost them for Flynn as well, and Flynns gonna cost more to keep, as hes gonna get paid a huge contract by whatever team drafts him, and RG3 will be less, with the new agreement the NFL has that pays Draftees less money now.. I'm not nearly as sold on Matt Flynn as others are.. I feel its actually a safer bet to go RG3, as he can beat u in more then 1way on any given day.. Even if hes not throwing well that sunday, he can make it happen with his legs, and keep plays alive, not that Flynns a statue, hes just not RG3..

buddy33
02-28-2012, 08:52 AM
I can see it both ways. As was said, there is a little connection with Flynn, they won't have to give away picks, and they will still get a great pick. I also hear something on Sirius yesterday saying how the Browns are set in their ways with their offense and RG3 might not fit or they might not use him right. Really couldn't get the entire story as I just got in my car.

nycsportzfan
02-28-2012, 08:56 AM
I can see it both ways. As was said, there is a little connection with Flynn, they won't have to give away picks, and they will still get a great pick. I also hear something on Sirius yesterday saying how the Browns are set in their ways with their offense and RG3 might not fit or they might not use him right. Really couldn't get the entire story as I just got in my car. How will they not have to give away picks? THe packers could Franchise Flynn, and then trade him... That will cost picks..

TheEnigma
02-28-2012, 08:59 AM
The Flynn to Browns idea isn't that farfetched when you think about it. After all, there is the connection between Holmgren and Green Bay.* Oh, i agree, but the browns would be crazy to not go with RG3, as its gonna cost them for Flynn as well, and Flynns gonna cost more to keep, as hes gonna get paid a huge contract by whatever team drafts him, and RG3 will be less, with the new agreement the NFL has that pays Draftees less money now..* I'm not nearly as sold on Matt Flynn as others are.. I feel its actually a safer bet to go RG3, as he can beat u in more then 1way on any given day.. Even if hes not throwing well that sunday, he can make it happen with his legs, and keep plays alive, not that Flynns a statue, hes just not RG3..It comes down to Mike Holmgren's philosophies. RG3 offers a lot, sure, but can the Browns franchise as a whole afford to give away picks for one really good player when they need help in several areas? They could grab Blackmon with the 4th pick and maybe a really good interior linemen with their 2nd 1st or perhaps Richardson if he fell that far? Plus, I think Flynn is more of Holmgren and Shurmur's style.

nycsportzfan
02-28-2012, 08:59 AM
I can see it both ways. As was said, there is a little connection with Flynn, they won't have to give away picks, and they will still get a great pick. I also hear something on Sirius yesterday saying how the Browns are set in their ways with their offense and RG3 might not fit or they might not use him right. Really couldn't get the entire story as I just got in my car. The same thing the pats did with matt cassell, except it'll probably take more to get Flynn...

nycsportzfan
02-28-2012, 09:01 AM
The Flynn to Browns idea isn't that farfetched when you think about it. After all, there is the connection between Holmgren and Green Bay. Oh, i agree, but the browns would be crazy to not go with RG3, as its gonna cost them for Flynn as well, and Flynns gonna cost more to keep, as hes gonna get paid a huge contract by whatever team drafts him, and RG3 will be less, with the new agreement the NFL has that pays Draftees less money now.. I'm not nearly as sold on Matt Flynn as others are.. I feel its actually a safer bet to go RG3, as he can beat u in more then 1way on any given day.. Even if hes not throwing well that sunday, he can make it happen with his legs, and keep plays alive, not that Flynns a statue, hes just not RG3..It comes down to Mike Holmgren's philosophies. RG3 offers a lot, sure, but can the Browns franchise as a whole afford to give away picks for one really good player when they need help in several areas? They could grab Blackmon with the 4th pick and maybe a really good interior linemen with their 2nd 1st or perhaps Richardson if he fell that far? Plus, I think Flynn is more of Holmgren and Shurmur's style. There gonna have to give up a 1st to get Flynn... The pack are gonna franchise Flynn and then trade him.. I'm sure it'll be a pricey trade for whoever gets Matt Flynn...

nycsportzfan
02-28-2012, 09:03 AM
The Flynn to Browns idea isn't that farfetched when you think about it. After all, there is the connection between Holmgren and Green Bay. Oh, i agree, but the browns would be crazy to not go with RG3, as its gonna cost them for Flynn as well, and Flynns gonna cost more to keep, as hes gonna get paid a huge contract by whatever team drafts him, and RG3 will be less, with the new agreement the NFL has that pays Draftees less money now.. I'm not nearly as sold on Matt Flynn as others are.. I feel its actually a safer bet to go RG3, as he can beat u in more then 1way on any given day.. Even if hes not throwing well that sunday, he can make it happen with his legs, and keep plays alive, not that Flynns a statue, hes just not RG3..It comes down to Mike Holmgren's philosophies. RG3 offers a lot, sure, but can the Browns franchise as a whole afford to give away picks for one really good player when they need help in several areas? They could grab Blackmon with the 4th pick and maybe a really good interior linemen with their 2nd 1st or perhaps Richardson if he fell that far? Plus, I think Flynn is more of Holmgren and Shurmur's style. Not to mention, the browns have been picking early for along enough time, that they should start to shwo signs of being good, as soon as they have a legit QB.. Colt McCoy isn't the guy to make Greg Little look good... RG3 on the other hand could make a FA WR and Little look real good.. The Browns would probably have at least there 2nd rder as well to add another WR, maybe a Ty hilton, or Juron Criner, Marvin McNutt, or someone like that...

TheEnigma
02-28-2012, 09:05 AM
Wasn't the latest word that the Packers weren't going to franchise Flynn? I could of sworn I read something like that a few days back.

buddy33
02-28-2012, 09:06 AM
Again, listening to Sirius yesterday, I forgot who it was saying it, they said for some reason that they may not franchise Flynn. I don't know why, I was just catching bits and pieces during the day.

Also, I haven't heard anyone not liking RG3, but yesterday they where comparing Luck and RG3 and saying how the system RG3 played in is not a pro system. They did say that he is very smart and broke down plays very well but if a team thinks Flynn has a better pro game they may make the move for him.

nycsportzfan
02-28-2012, 09:07 AM
If Casey Hayward runs well today, i hope the giants start to realize how good this kid is, and do what it takes to draft him... Casey Hayward is no freaking joke, i'm telling ya... I think hes gonna be one of the steals of the draft... A ball hawk who plays the run and showed solid strength with 19reps on teh bench press as well, and is obviously smart, being a vandy kid.. We could use another playmaker in our secondary and i think Casey Hayward is the best CB no one really talks about and i'd take him over Dre Kirkpatrick or Alphonso Dennard.. I think hes the 3rd best CB, and pretty close to the 2nd guy Janoris Jenkins...

nycsportzfan
02-28-2012, 09:08 AM
Wasn't the latest word that the Packers weren't going to franchise Flynn? I could of sworn I read something like that a few days back. Well that changes everything, but i bet once teams start showing interst in Flynn, they'll start figuring it out, and there not gonna let the Golden opp to gain valuable picks , pass them by.. I'd be surprised if the Pack let em walk without comign away with something..

buddy33
02-28-2012, 09:10 AM
Wasn't the latest word that the Packers weren't going to franchise Flynn? I could of sworn I read something like that a few days back.

I heard something like that yesterday on Sirius. I mean they might make the trade and take RG3, but this morning they where saying how the Rams where a bit surprised the Browns have showed no signs of wanting to trade.

bLuereverie
02-28-2012, 10:02 AM
Packers won't franchise Flynn as it's pretty stupid to do so.

It's a huge gamble as you risk keeping a backup at $14 mil, essentially paying him more than Aaron Rodgers. That $14mil would be prorated as guaranteed money in the event he goes elsewhere and restructures, but that is still a high amount for a still unproven commodity.

critters
02-28-2012, 10:11 AM
If Casey Hayward runs well today, i hope the giants start to realize how good this kid is, and do what it takes to draft him... Casey Hayward is no freaking joke, i'm telling ya... I think hes gonna be one of the steals of the draft... A ball hawk who plays the run and showed solid strength with 19reps on teh bench press as well, and is obviously smart, being a vandy kid.. We could use another playmaker in our secondary and i think Casey Hayward is the best CB no one really talks about and i'd take him over Dre Kirkpatrick or Alphonso Dennard.. I think hes the 3rd best CB, and pretty close to the 2nd guy Janoris Jenkins...

I'm a big fan of Hayward's as well. Really hope he's on our radar. I'd take him over Dennard any day (not a fan of his). Not sure on Dre Kirkpatrick because of his size, speed and his coaching up to this point. Definitely not saying he won't be better than Dre though.

Another guy I really like is Trumaine Johnson and he just put up a 4.5 40 at 6'2! He's got 33" arms and still put up 19 reps.

nycsportzfan
02-28-2012, 10:18 AM
If Casey Hayward runs well today, i hope the giants start to realize how good this kid is, and do what it takes to draft him... Casey Hayward is no freaking joke, i'm telling ya... I think hes gonna be one of the steals of the draft... A ball hawk who plays the run and showed solid strength with 19reps on teh bench press as well, and is obviously smart, being a vandy kid.. We could use another playmaker in our secondary and i think Casey Hayward is the best CB no one really talks about and i'd take him over Dre Kirkpatrick or Alphonso Dennard.. I think hes the 3rd best CB, and pretty close to the 2nd guy Janoris Jenkins...

I'm a big fan of Hayward's as well. Really hope he's on our radar. I'd take him over Dennard any day (not a fan of his). Not sure on Dre Kirkpatrick because of his size and his coaching up to this point. Definitely not saying he won't be better than Dre though.

Another guy I really like is Trumaine Johnson and he just put up a 4.5 40 at 6'2! He's got 33" arms and still put up 19 reps.
Ya, Trumaines had me intrigued ever since i heard about him, since about week 1 of this past yr.. I wish i could of seen more, but boy hes got alot going for him.. </P>


One guy i love, that ran a terrible 40, was Leonard Johnson of Iowa St.. I thought for sure he'd at least run a 4.50, as he just plays faster... A guy i always thought the Giants would have interest in is Stephon Gilmore of S Carolina.. He had a good 40time at his size, and is very physical against the Run.. Seems to be a nice fit for what we like.. </P>

BluGiantPies
02-28-2012, 10:30 AM
Love Hayward, trumaine is good but I think hell be a safety, dennard has stiff hips, and Gilmore is a zone guy.Hayward is the best fit for us I think.

heavyhitter
02-28-2012, 10:46 AM
<font size="2">Giants safeties coach David Merritt is going threw the drills w/ these defensive backs</font>

critters
02-28-2012, 11:56 AM
4.43 for Dre K's first run. Wow.

Dequan Menzie ran a 4.63 but looks thick... and I don't mean fat. Kinda looks like a safety.

Redeyejedi
02-28-2012, 11:58 AM
*If Casey Hayward runs well today, i hope the giants start to realize how good this kid is, and do what it takes to draft him... Casey Hayward is no freaking joke,* i'm telling ya... I think hes gonna be one of the steals of the draft... A ball hawk who plays the run and showed solid strength with 19reps on teh bench press as well, and is obviously smart, being a vandy kid.. We could use another playmaker in our secondary and i think Casey Hayward is the best CB no one really talks about and i'd take him over Dre Kirkpatrick or Alphonso Dennard.. I think hes the 3rd best CB, and pretty close to the 2nd guy Janoris Jenkins...

I'm a big fan of Hayward's as well. Really hope he's on our radar. I'd take him over Dennard any day (not a fan of his). Not sure on Dre Kirkpatrick because of his size and his coaching up to this point. Definitely not saying he won't be better than Dre though.

Another guy I really like is Trumaine Johnson and he just put up a 4.5 40 at 6'2! He's got 33" arms and still put up 19 reps.
Ya, Trumaines had me intrigued ever since i heard about him, since about week 1 of this past yr..* I wish i could of seen more, but boy hes got alot going for him..* </P>


One guy i love, that ran a terrible 40, was Leonard Johnson of Iowa St.. I thought for sure he'd at least run a 4.50,* as he just plays faster...* A guy i always thought the Giants would have interest in is Stephon Gilmore of S Carolina.. He had a good 40time at his size, and is very physical against the Run.. Seems to be a nice fit for what we like..* </P>I put 2 of Trumaines games up yesterday on the Film Room thread

BlueSanta
02-28-2012, 03:59 PM
A guy i always thought the Giants would have interest in is Stephon Gilmore of S Carolina.. He had a good 40time at his size, and is very physical against the Run.. Seems to be a nice fit for what we like..

I agree. That is a Reese type player for sure(unless his interviews were bad but no way we could know.)

lawl
02-28-2012, 05:48 PM
Ucf boy doing work. Josh Robinson.


Ucf produces alot of DBs (for a school of our current magnitude). Asante Samuel atari bigby. Michael Greco got a SB ring with gb and before that he Was in our training camp. We've also had sharrief rashad on our PS and alot of our camps.

nycsportzfan
02-28-2012, 06:14 PM
If Casey Hayward runs well today, i hope the giants start to realize how good this kid is, and do what it takes to draft him... Casey Hayward is no freaking joke, i'm telling ya... I think hes gonna be one of the steals of the draft... A ball hawk who plays the run and showed solid strength with 19reps on teh bench press as well, and is obviously smart, being a vandy kid.. We could use another playmaker in our secondary and i think Casey Hayward is the best CB no one really talks about and i'd take him over Dre Kirkpatrick or Alphonso Dennard.. I think hes the 3rd best CB, and pretty close to the 2nd guy Janoris Jenkins...

I'm a big fan of Hayward's as well. Really hope he's on our radar. I'd take him over Dennard any day (not a fan of his). Not sure on Dre Kirkpatrick because of his size and his coaching up to this point. Definitely not saying he won't be better than Dre though.

Another guy I really like is Trumaine Johnson and he just put up a 4.5 40 at 6'2! He's got 33" arms and still put up 19 reps.
Ya, Trumaines had me intrigued ever since i heard about him, since about week 1 of this past yr.. I wish i could of seen more, but boy hes got alot going for him.. </P>


One guy i love, that ran a terrible 40, was Leonard Johnson of Iowa St.. I thought for sure he'd at least run a 4.50, as he just plays faster... A guy i always thought the Giants would have interest in is Stephon Gilmore of S Carolina.. He had a good 40time at his size, and is very physical against the Run.. Seems to be a nice fit for what we like.. </P>I put 2 of Trumaines games up yesterday on the Film Room thread thats awesome, man! I can't wait to watch those! I think hes a late 2nd rder...

nycsportzfan
02-28-2012, 06:24 PM
wow, can't believe the day Leonard Johnson had.. horrible.. I gotta go study a bit more of his tape and see how much stock i gotta put into this combine for him.. I really liked this kid, and gotta see whats up...

nycsportzfan
02-28-2012, 06:24 PM
A guy i always thought the Giants would have interest in is Stephon Gilmore of S Carolina.. He had a good 40time at his size, and is very physical against the Run.. Seems to be a nice fit for what we like..

I agree. That is a Reese type player for sure(unless his interviews were bad but no way we could know.)
ya, the interviews are always something we don't know..

nevada11
03-28-2012, 04:24 PM
That whole downfield threat thing is a bit misleading. I like Fleener a lot, but I do not see him running 4.4. He is fast for his size no doubt, but not quick. He isnt quick off the line like Allen or Charles.

I think you need to be eating crow right now. I'll order a large dish with some extras

BlueSanta
03-28-2012, 06:58 PM
That whole downfield threat thing is a bit misleading. I like Fleener a lot, but I do not see him running 4.4. He is fast for his size no doubt, but not quick. He isnt quick off the line like Allen or Charles.

I think you need to be eating crow right now. I'll order a large dish with some extras

I will on the 40 time. I wont on the quickness, the tape doesn't lie. Fleener did have trouble getting off the line of Scrimmage at times. Allen is quicker in and our of breaks, runs a much wider array of routes, but thats because he was asked to do it a lot more.

I still think Fleener is likely going to be taken 1st among the TEs. However, he has a lot of unknowns too. He didnt run a wide array of routes. He was used as an end line TE, being asked to block far more often than Allen. However, he is worse at it than Allen. People assume he can learn, but that is no given, just ask Beckum, who has trouble blocking DBs he has 30 lbs on.

But nice try digging this up, it might have worked better if I was actually a guy who didnt think Fleener is a great prospect, but you seem to be too much a fanbois to recignize how good Allen also is. I guess thats the difference between us, I care more about recognizing what each player can do well, rather than trying to "win" an thread about them.

Neverend
03-28-2012, 07:19 PM
Meh. Don't see Allen as quick-twitch. That's not really his game. He gets separation in and out breaks because hes really light on his feet, fluid, very sharp in his cuts, and has a good burst

Allen is just really, really smooth kind of like a Jason Whitten or maybe an Antonio Gates. But when it comes to quickness out of his breaks? Fleener beats him there. Fleener has great quickness at the top of his routes against man coverage and tremendous speed/second gear afterwards that Allen simply doesnt possess. Gives him much more upside to me

slipknottin
03-29-2012, 01:22 AM
Fleener doesnt run his routes at top speed, and he does have trouble at the line if he gets jammed.

But both are coachable issues.

The issue I have with Allen is I think he is pretty polished, and just doesnt have all that much upside.

nycsportzfan
03-29-2012, 06:54 AM
Meh. Don't see Allen as quick-twitch. That's not really his game. He gets separation in and out breaks because hes really light on his feet, fluid, very sharp in his cuts, and has a good burst Allen is just really, really smooth kind of like a Jason Whitten or maybe an Antonio Gates. But when it comes to quickness out of his breaks? Fleener beats him there. Fleener has great quickness at the top of his routes against man coverage and tremendous speed/second gear afterwards that Allen simply doesnt possess. Gives him much more upside to me I think Dwayne Allen's game is eerily similar to that of Fred Davis.. Antonio Gates is also a good one, as Davis and Gates are pretty similar as well.. But anyhow, Dwayne Allen reminds me of Fred Davis with out the off field issues and if he came to the giants, a much more consistent QB...

nevada11
04-05-2012, 01:52 PM
That whole downfield threat thing is a bit misleading. I like Fleener a lot, but I do not see him running 4.4. He is fast for his size no doubt, but not quick. He isnt quick off the line like Allen or Charles.

I think you need to be eating crow right now. I'll order a large dish with some extras

I will on the 40 time. I wont on the quickness, the tape doesn't lie. Fleener did have trouble getting off the line of Scrimmage at times. Allen is quicker in and our of breaks, runs a much wider array of routes, but thats because he was asked to do it a lot more.

I still think Fleener is likely going to be taken 1st among the TEs. However, he has a lot of unknowns too. He didnt run a wide array of routes. He was used as an end line TE,* being asked to block far more often than Allen. However, he is worse at it than Allen. People assume he can learn, but that is no given, just ask Beckum, who has trouble blocking DBs he has 30 lbs on.

But nice try digging this up, it might have worked better if I was* actually a guy who didnt think Fleener is a great prospect, but you seem to be too much a fanbois to recignize how good Allen also is.* I guess thats the difference between us, I care more about recognizing what each player can do well, rather than trying to "win" an thread about them.


I didn't really "dig it up". I was searching some stuff about fleener/allen and found this post. I don't care about you personally or whatever ego you have that just got hurt

BlueSanta
04-05-2012, 04:25 PM
That whole downfield threat thing is a bit misleading. I like Fleener a lot, but I do not see him running 4.4. He is fast for his size no doubt, but not quick. He isnt quick off the line like Allen or Charles.

I think you need to be eating crow right now. I'll order a large dish with some extras

I will on the 40 time. I wont on the quickness, the tape doesn't lie. Fleener did have trouble getting off the line of Scrimmage at times. Allen is quicker in and our of breaks, runs a much wider array of routes, but thats because he was asked to do it a lot more.

I still think Fleener is likely going to be taken 1st among the TEs. However, he has a lot of unknowns too. He didnt run a wide array of routes. He was used as an end line TE, being asked to block far more often than Allen. However, he is worse at it than Allen. People assume he can learn, but that is no given, just ask Beckum, who has trouble blocking DBs he has 30 lbs on.

But nice try digging this up, it might have worked better if I was actually a guy who didnt think Fleener is a great prospect, but you seem to be too much a fanbois to recignize how good Allen also is. I guess thats the difference between us, I care more about recognizing what each player can do well, rather than trying to "win" an thread about them.


I didn't really "dig it up". I was searching some stuff about fleener/allen and found this post. I don't care about you personally or whatever ego you have that just got hurt

As I said, I did not see him running that fast, but I wasnt alone. Mayock, Mcshay and all the scouts didnt see it either. It was a upside surprise. It means nothing to me that he ran well, why would I route against the kid? That makes no sense that my ego would be hurt because someone ran a good 40 to everyone's surprise.

Its interesting how people like to try to assign meaning to words to suit their opinions. As I originally said in this thread, I think Allen is a better route runner and a better short area reciever and a vastly superior blocker. I think Fleener is a better deep threat and faster rather than quick. I think the fact that Fleener never once completed any quickness drills either at the combine or at his pro day supports my claim. In fact, he turned his ankle when he did the 3 cone drill at his pro day requiring an ankle taping. I think that pretty much supports my claim that he is a straight line speed guy and not a quickness guy. But, I don't dig up old threads to show my point.

NY4U2
04-05-2012, 04:31 PM
lol since when do 40s = great player...I had a 40 the other day and i drank it very quick and i still cant play football good

Neverend
04-05-2012, 05:05 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d26zjmAzDgQ

Skip to 7:00. Thats tremendous quickness right there. You can't tell me his fast rather than quick

Dude is quick and fast. I think his 4.4 speed is more showcased after the catch then into his routes for some reason. Fleener gets his separation with great quickness and the speed is just a bonus after the catch. He's a little bit of a long strider coming off the line

BlueSanta
04-05-2012, 05:36 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d26zjmAzDgQ

Skip to 7:00. Thats tremendous quickness right there. You can't tell me his fast rather than quick

Dude is quick and fast. I think his 4.4 speed is more showcased after the catch then into his routes for some reason. Fleener gets his separation with great quickness and the speed is just a bonus after the catch. He's a little bit of a long strider coming off the line

Huh? Do you even understand the difference between quickness and speed? At 7:00 he runs a vertical post route, that is almost exclusively a vertical straight line speed route, not a quickness route.That supports my claim that Fleener gains separation from speed, not so much quickness.

Thats not a knock either. Speed kills and having it isnt a bad thing. But he is not a quickness guy, he is a speed guy.

Neverend
04-05-2012, 06:38 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d26zjmAzDgQ

Skip to 7:00. Thats tremendous quickness right there. You can't tell me his fast rather than quick

Dude is quick and fast. I think his 4.4 speed is more showcased after the catch then into his routes for some reason. Fleener gets his separation with great quickness and the speed is just a bonus after the catch. He's a little bit of a long strider coming off the line

Huh? Do you even understand the difference between quickness and speed? At 7:00 he runs a vertical post route, that is almost exclusively a vertical straight line speed route, not a quickness route.That supports my claim that Fleener gains separation from speed, not so much quickness.

Thats not a knock either. Speed kills and having it isnt a bad thing. But he is not a quickness guy, he is a speed guy.


Gaining separation on a post route has little to do with speed, maintaining separation.. sure. But the initial separation is all about the quickness out of the break, which you clearly saw.

You can argue a receiver getting separation with that route with speed, but thats not the case here. If he was slow playing his route by being lethargic and then immediately getting out of his cut at full speed, yes. But in this case Fleener was running his route at full speed downfield and exploded out of his break.

Majority of the time Fleener gets separation by setting people up or with quickness. The speed aspect of his game is more seen after the catch. Then again, not sure if to take you serious when it comes to things about Fleener. I've seen you claim ridiculous things about fleener before, like saying he is lined up in-line, and only in-line, for stanford last year when he was absolutely a versatile weapon for them

BlueSanta
04-06-2012, 01:10 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d26zjmAzDgQ

Skip to 7:00. Thats tremendous quickness right there. You can't tell me his fast rather than quick

Dude is quick and fast. I think his 4.4 speed is more showcased after the catch then into his routes for some reason. Fleener gets his separation with great quickness and the speed is just a bonus after the catch. He's a little bit of a long strider coming off the line

Huh? Do you even understand the difference between quickness and speed? At 7:00 he runs a vertical post route, that is almost exclusively a vertical straight line speed route, not a quickness route.That supports my claim that Fleener gains separation from speed, not so much quickness.

Thats not a knock either. Speed kills and having it isnt a bad thing. But he is not a quickness guy, he is a speed guy.


Gaining separation on a post route has little to do with speed, maintaining separation.. sure. But the initial separation is all about the quickness out of the break, which you clearly saw.

You can argue a receiver getting separation with that route with speed, but thats not the case here. If he was slow playing his route by being lethargic and then immediately getting out of his cut at full speed, yes. But in this case Fleener was running his route at full speed downfield and exploded out of his break.

Majority of the time Fleener gets separation by setting people up or with quickness. The speed aspect of his game is more seen after the catch. Then again, not sure if to take you serious when it comes to things about Fleener. I've seen you claim ridiculous things about fleener before, like saying he is lined up in-line, and only in-line, for stanford last year when he was absolutely a versatile weapon for them

Nope, you really dont know the difference between quickness and speed. The route you mention is a good example of speed, and has little to do with quickness. In fact, the post is the 2nd straightest route of all the traditional routes in football. Few routes show straight line speed better than a post. Few routes will show quickness less than a post.

Btw, how did Fleener "get seperation" on that play at all? Not only does it appear you dont know the different between quickenss and speed, but it appears you do not know the definition of "seperation" either. The DB nearly intercepted it, and prolly should have(then again he plays for Duke for a reason) but a more disciplined Db just batts that away rather than playing for the int and giving up a TD when he missed.

You could not cite a play that strengthens my point any more than the 1 you chose, thank you.

Neverend
04-06-2012, 01:19 AM
Nope, you really dont know the difference between quickness and speed. The route you mention is a good example of speed, and has little to do with quickness. In fact, the post is the 2nd straightest route* of all the traditional routes in football. Few routes show straight line speed better than a post. Few routes will show quickness less than a post.




Strange. Then I cant help but think you must have a very unique, subjective unorthodox view of what quickness is because I can't fathom how anyone can see that Fleener TD and say he didn't exhibit any kind of quickness in that route


So you're saying that only certain routes can determine someone's quickness out of their breaks? Even if on those certain routes you talk about, the receiver didn't even try to make a cut but rounded it off? Or in these so called routes that are all about speed, a receiver shows the ability to get separation off this route with quickness, but it wasn't the receiver being quick because that route only can be successful with straight line speed? Thats some strange logic

In my opinion, quickness is all about the stem.. measured by the explosiveness you show sticking your foot in the ground. In that route, you saw excellent quickness in that particular play. He wasnt "almost exclusively" running in a straight line. Are you sure you are not seeing the same play I am?

Majority of routes, when you're trying to get separation... you have to make a break. Your ability to separate at the break is all about your quickness and burst, which again, Fleener showed there

BlueSanta
04-06-2012, 01:24 AM
Nope, you really dont know the difference between quickness and speed. The route you mention is a good example of speed, and has little to do with quickness. In fact, the post is the 2nd straightest route of all the traditional routes in football. Few routes show straight line speed better than a post. Few routes will show quickness less than a post.




Strange. Then I cant help but think you must have a very unique, subjective unorthodox view of what quickness is because I can't fathom how anyone can see that Fleener TD and say he didn't exhibit any kind of quickness in that route


So you're saying that only certain routes can determine someone's quickness out of their breaks? Even if on those certain routes you talk about, the receiver didn't even try to make a cut but rounded it off? Or in these so called routes that are all about speed, a receiver shows the ability to get separation off this route with quickness, but it wasn't the receiver being quick because that route only can be successful with straight line speed? Thats some strange logic

In my opinion, quickness is all about the stem.. measured by the explosiveness you show sticking your foot in the ground. In that route, you saw excellent quickness in that particular play. He wasnt "almost exclusively" running in a straight line. Are you sure you are not seeing the same play I am?

Majority of routes, when you're trying to get separation... you have to make a break. Your ability to separate at the break is all about your quickness and burst, which again, Fleener showed there

Look at the play. There was no seperation. The DB nearly intercepted it and prolly should have. Like most Duke players he lacked discipline but he was in position when the ball arived to make a play, he just didnt.

Also ,a Post route only shows speed not quickness The 2nd straightest route in football is not a good example of quickness.

As I said, he is a vertical player based on speed, not quickness. Allen is a quickness player who isnt as adept at the verticals. And I am not saying Allen is better than Fleener.

But you could not show a play that more exemplifies exactly what I said about Fleener, so I thank you for proving my point.

Neverend
04-06-2012, 12:05 PM
Seriously dude? That's twice now you said there was "no separation". I don't know what separation is? Man, I just can't agree with you. I think you're seeing what you want to see

I think you're looking at the play itself. Hard to judge when the only thing they show is just the catch point and the yards accumulated afterwards. Look at the replay. After all, theres a reason why I said start at the 7 minute mark in the video. Clearly Fleener gets separation but because the ball was slightly underthrown, Fleener had to SLOW DOWN after he made an explosive break, which allowed the DB to make up ground and recover

For you to say there was no quickness shown in the route, it was "almost" a straight line route, and that Fleener got zero separation on that play is just silly. You're seeing what you want to see, man.

I agree with you in some ways that a lot of Fleener's plays revolve around his speed but that particular play was a great example of that he can be oustandingly quick as well out of his breaks

nevada11
04-06-2012, 08:41 PM
That whole downfield threat thing is a bit misleading. I like Fleener a lot, but I do not see him running 4.4. He is fast for his size no doubt, but not quick. He isnt quick off the line like Allen or Charles.

I think you need to be eating crow right now. I'll order a large dish with some extras

I will on the 40 time. I wont on the quickness, the tape doesn't lie. Fleener did have trouble getting off the line of Scrimmage at times. Allen is quicker in and our of breaks, runs a much wider array of routes, but thats because he was asked to do it a lot more.

I still think Fleener is likely going to be taken 1st among the TEs. However, he has a lot of unknowns too. He didnt run a wide array of routes. He was used as an end line TE,* being asked to block far more often than Allen. However, he is worse at it than Allen. People assume he can learn, but that is no given, just ask Beckum, who has trouble blocking DBs he has 30 lbs on.

But nice try digging this up, it might have worked better if I was* actually a guy who didnt think Fleener is a great prospect, but you seem to be too much a fanbois to recignize how good Allen also is.* I guess thats the difference between us, I care more about recognizing what each player can do well, rather than trying to "win" an thread about them.


I didn't really "dig it up". I was searching some stuff about fleener/allen and found this post. I don't care about you personally or whatever ego you have that just got hurt

As I said, I did not see him running that fast, but I wasnt alone. Mayock, Mcshay and all the scouts didnt see it either. It was a upside surprise. It means nothing to me that he ran well, why would I route against the kid? That makes no sense that my ego would be hurt because someone ran a good 40 to everyone's surprise.

Its interesting how people like to try to assign meaning to words to suit their opinions. As I originally said in this thread, I think Allen is a better route runner and a better short area reciever and a vastly superior blocker. I think Fleener is a better deep threat and faster rather than quick. I think the fact that Fleener never once completed any quickness drills either at the combine or at his pro day supports my claim. In fact, he turned his ankle when he did the 3 cone drill at his pro day requiring an ankle taping. I think that pretty much supports my claim that he is a straight line speed guy and not a quickness guy. But, I don't dig up old threads to show my point.





Like I said already.. I could care less about you and whether or not your ego and reputation feels hurt and offended. Didnt "dig" anything because of you, i don't even know who you are or ever seen you as important around here

Neverend
04-06-2012, 08:59 PM
The most amusing part is if he had argued about Fleener getting that separation with speed, not quickness maybe he'd have a somewhat valid point. But for him to say Fleener had got no separation in that route just makes you lose any kind of credibility. Talk about being blind

Its hilarity, really. So supposedly, if a receiver comes off his break in an explosive fashion and gains immediate inital separation -- that's not quickness. It's supposedly "an almost straight route" even if the receiver made a crisp break

Then here comes to funny part -- when they have the separation but have to slow down to adjust to the ball -- they didn't get separation in the play. Oh, and the corner had good coverage but should have intercepted it when really the corner was able to make up ground because of the underthrown the ball and launched his body at a "hail mary" attempt to bat down the pass (but, oh, he should have caught it)

It's almost as ridiculous as Bluesanta saying Fleener is lined up at all times close to the line because stanford runs a pro style offense. Not that he's wrong that stanford runs a pro style offense, but even if Fleener is obviously lined up out wide on film its impossible not because its not seen on film but because standford runs a pro style offense.

Give me a break, the depths some go to just because they don't want to look in the slightbest bit of wrong

BlueSanta
04-06-2012, 11:24 PM
Seriously dude? That's twice now you said there was "no separation". I don't know what separation is?\

The ball was nearly and likely should have been intercepted.....in the NFL it IS intercepted. But the guy wiffed, he does play for Duke for a reason. I am not saying it is Fleener's fault, because it isnt, Imho it was on Luck. But that ball in the NFL is a int 8 out of 10 times in the NFL. But again, a post is a speed route, not a quickness route and if there is any seperation there, which there really isnt much it is because of the speed, not quickness.

Again, Coby didnt complete 1 single quickness drill this offseason and avoided doing them even at his pro day. When it came time to do the 3 cone drill, a typical quickness measure, he said he tweeked his ankle. However, It was miraculously healed when it came time for pass catching drills.

People need to stop acting as if this is some huge slight on the guy or that I am bashing their long lonst mancrush love. It is perfectly reasonable that a guy nearly 6'6 inches tall ISNT that quick. Fleener is still the best overal TE prospect. But that doesnt mean he is more than what he is, and quickness is at the bottom of the list of his strengths.

Neverend
04-07-2012, 12:23 AM
Seriously dude? That's twice now you said there was "no separation". I don't know what separation is?\

The ball was nearly and likely should have been intercepted.....in the NFL it IS intercepted.* But the guy wiffed, he does play for Duke for a reason. I am not saying it is Fleener's fault, because it isnt, Imho it was on Luck. But that ball in the NFL is a int 8 out of 10 times in the NFL. But again, a post is a speed route, not a quickness route and if there is any seperation there, which there really isnt much it is because of the speed, not quickness.

Again, Coby didnt complete 1 single quickness drill this offseason and avoided doing them even at his pro day. When it came time to do the 3 cone drill, a typical quickness measure, he said he tweeked his ankle. However, It was miraculously healed when it came time for pass catching drills.

Glad you admit the reason why the DB nearly intercepted the pass was because of Luck, not because Fleener couldnt separate from the DB.

So about the route thing. You're saying the only reasoning why someone would win on a post route is because of speed, and not quickness (Even though he evidently displayed great quickness at the top of his stem, but that doesnt matter at all)

Following that logic, when a receiver wins on a fly/go route, its usually by speed and never quickness because they're running in a straight line. So again according to your logic it can ONLY be won by speed and not much else. So let me get this straight

- WR A wins on a go route because he was able to get past CB with simply his second gear and top end speed.

- WR B wins on a go route by not getting much separation but was able to box out the defender and make a highly contested catch with the CB draped all over him

- WR C does not win on speed nor body control, but rather on quickness. He was able to get past the CB purely based on his lateral quickness off the line. With the CB on his heels due to whiffing and being beat off the line of scrimmage, he gives up separation and WR C wins on the go in a straight line.

I just gave examples of how you can win on a go route (which I'm assuming you agree is the route most dependent on speed) other than speed. So you are basically saying it is impossible for WR B and C to be considered quick or having great ball skills because when you make a catch on a fly route, it is only speed because of something you read somewhere that tells you go routes is most dependent on speed, so its impossible to make a play on that route in other ways -- like Fleener's post route

I think you're logic is very flawed dude. The most common way to win a post route or a fly route is by speed, but there are others ways. Fleener did not get separation by running in a straight line, he did by showcasing an explosive break at the top of his stem -- which is how quickness is measured, how effective you are when you stick that foot in the dirt. I'm sure you can win on "quickness routes" with other ways than just quickness. I think that's what you fail to understand and Coby Fleener, in that particular play, is an excellent example of his top notch quickness atop his routes and debunks your theory that his game is mostly all about speed.

BlueSanta
04-07-2012, 01:38 PM
.

So about the route thing. You're saying the only reasoning why someone would win on a post route is because of speed, and not quickness

Where do you get that from? Did I say that?

The poster above said that play was a perfect example of Fleener's quickness. I said it is a horrible example and I do not think Fleener is a "quickness" guy, that has been my point all along. I stand by it. If you want to show quickness there are better examples, but Fleener wasnt asked to do too may quickness routes in his stay at Stanford.

He is a speed guy.

Saying "look how quick this guy is in this clip" then showing a post route is pointless. A post is a speed route and besides the DB had outside leverage. I watch that clip and I dont see quickness, I see speed. Because a guy runs a post it doesnt mean he isnt quick either, it just isnt a good example. It is a route they asked Fleener to run an aweful lot because he is a speed player and they knew it.

Feel free to review his 34 catch and see exactly how many were Post, Corner, or Go routes. I can tell you it is a fairly large percentage. Stanford would run run run, then play action to Fleener behind the defense. That was their motto. You can say you see quickness all you want, but that doesnt make it truth. The fact is Stanford used him as a speed player.

Again, because people seem to get offended by reading a post and not the entire thread, let me restate that I do NOT think him being a speed player is a bad thing at all. It is a mere difference I was noting between he and Allen, who are both good prospects.

Ill ask again because it keeps getting ignored, if Fleener is so quick why didnt he perform any of the quickness drills at any of a opportunities he has had this offseason? The fact is, he knows at 6'6 it wouldnt be his strength and also know anyone looking for a quickenss player likely wasnt going to target him.

Neverend
04-07-2012, 01:51 PM
Where do you get that from? Did I say that?

I said it is a horrible example and I do not think Fleener is a "quickness" guy, that has been my point all along.

Saying "look how quick this guy is in this clip" then showing a post route is pointless. A post is a speed route and besides the DB had outside leverage. I watch that clip and I dont see quickness, I see speed.* Because a guy runs a post it doesnt mean he isnt quick either, it just isnt a good example.

Glad you repeated your point about "that's not quickenss because it was a post route". I disputed this notion that routes can only be won a certain way. What you're saying is that route wasn't won on quickness but by speed because post routes are always won on speed.

Your definiton of quickness is not how a fast a receiver explodes out of a stem or how fluid they are in and out of their breaks -- but by rather the route they ran. So you're saying if a receiver runs a go, but didn't get get separation and made the catch with a defender draped over him, he has great speed because go routes are all about speed? That sounds so silly. Never, ever heard that one beofre

Like I said, my point is.. you can make (and a good one on your part) the point that Fleener's game is mostly on speed and you're probably not wrong that he's a "speed guy". But the guy can absolutely be quick-twitch out of his breaks, which he was on that play. Explain to me how that route wasn't won on him being displaying excellent quickness at the top of his stem? Chances are, you're going to tell me its irrelevant that he showed quickness in his route because post routes can't be won by quickness. Its about as ridiclous of a logic as I've read

edit: Oh, about the drills. Well, my point is that Fleener can show great quickness in his routes in the many great elements of his tremendous skill set as a football player. That play is an excellent example of that. Everything about him being injured with his ankle and not chooising to participate in all the drills, well, thats on him. Don't think he had some kind of hidden agenda, I just think he was simply injured. But thats separate, doesnt dispute anything about him not being quick in games as evidently seen on that play where he showed, again, great quick-twitch ability to get separation

BlueSanta
04-07-2012, 01:54 PM
Where do you get that from? Did I say that?

I said it is a horrible example and I do not think Fleener is a "quickness" guy, that has been my point all along.

Saying "look how quick this guy is in this clip" then showing a post route is pointless. A post is a speed route and besides the DB had outside leverage. I watch that clip and I dont see quickness, I see speed. Because a guy runs a post it doesnt mean he isnt quick either, it just isnt a good example.

Glad you repeated your point about "that's not quickenss because it was a post route". I disputed this notion that routes can only be won a certain way. What you're saying is that route wasn't won on quickness but by speed because post routes are always won on speed.

Your definiton of quickness is not how a fast a receiver explodes out of a stem or how fluid they are in and out of their breaks -- but by rather the route they ran. So you're saying if a receiver runs a go, but didn't get get separation and made the catch with a defender draped over him, he has great speed because go routes are all about speed? That sounds so silly. Never, ever heard that one beofre

Like I said, my point is.. you can make a (and a good one on your part) the point that Fleener's game is mostly on speed and you're probably not wrong that he's a "speed guy". But the guy can absolutely be quick-twitch out of his break, which he was on that play. Explain to me how that route wasn't won on him being displaying excellent quickness at the top of his stem? Chances are, you're going to tell me its irrelevant that he showed quickness in his route because post routes can't be won by quickness. Its about as ridiclous of a logic as I've read

"that's not quickness because its a post route"

Thats what you read in my post?You're reading comprehension is terrible...seriously terrible.

But it's ok just keep trying to put words in my mouth and then applying your wierd logic to fit your point.


There are LOTs of highlight reels out there on Fleener. Why not just link a few Out routes? or some other quickness route to show your point that would be better suited? Why keep trying to say a guy running in an almost straight line is a good example of quickness? So silly. I am done here.

Neverend
04-07-2012, 02:00 PM
You're reading comprehension is terrible...seriously terrible.*

But it's ok just keep trying to put words in my mouth and then applying your wierd logic* fit your point.




Says the person who's reasoning when a receiver show's great quickness atop his route and gets separation, he didn't because:

"the DB should have intercepted that ball. there was no separation"

(even though the pass was underthrown and DB made up ground)

"a post route is won on speed"

(ridiculously stupid notion routes can only be won on one certain way so it eliminates any idea that it can be won other ways)

And then slowly backtrack and claim you never said these things or didn't mean it. My reading comprehension may be terrible or something, but its a lot better than saying stupid things because I dont want to be proven wrong about my ignorant theories (like you)

BlueSanta
04-07-2012, 02:02 PM
You're reading comprehension is terrible...seriously terrible.

But it's ok just keep trying to put words in my mouth and then applying your wierd logic fit your point.




My reading comprehension may be terrible or something

Nuff said

BlueSanta
04-07-2012, 02:03 PM
You're reading comprehension is terrible...seriously terrible.

But it's ok just keep trying to put words in my mouth and then applying your wierd logic fit your point.




My reading comprehension may be terrible or something

Nuff said

Neverend
04-07-2012, 02:08 PM
Pretty sad when a guy can't even dispute anything in an argument so they backtrack what they say and then drop themselves to a level where they have to insult because they can't really make any kind of counter point

Have fun with your genius theories that if a receiver wins a route it can ONLY be won on a certain way.

If they win on a post route by quickness at the top of their stem, they can't because post routes are won by speed. That's exactly like saying if a receiver wins on a go route by boxing out a corner despite with little separation, they don't have great ball skills but great speed because straight line fly routes are won by speed.

I guess it must be fun living in such a close-minded world with ridiculous ignorant football "theories" you like to come up with. Good riddance I guess


Still not nearly as stupid as you saying Fleener is only lined up tight to the line because stanford plays a pro style offense. When clearly Fleener is used as a receiver quite often (even in the play I linked). But oh, this can't be true because stanford runs a pro style offense. Amazing logic! I guess you just like to say things out of your *** often, and when you're called out on it, you have to come up with the most silliest ways to go around it. Why bother arguing with the ignorant

BlueSanta
04-07-2012, 02:36 PM
Have fun with your genius theories that if a receiver wins a route it can ONLY be won on a certain way.

My reading comprehension may be terrible or something


you saying Fleener is only lined up tight to the line because stanford plays a pro style offense.

Lets review my quote please and see if that is what I said:


He(fleener) was used at a "tight to the line" blocker far more often that allen



My reading comprehension may be terrible or something


Why bother arguing with the ignorant

Good point! I agree. I cannot argue with someone who doesnt understand the written word

My reading comprehension may be terrible or something

Neverend
04-07-2012, 02:41 PM
Again, more ignorance.

I was talking about another thread when you made that ridiculous statement that Fleener is only lined up tight to the line, not because of something you saw in games but because "stanford runs a pro style offense"

You DID state that on a thread not too long ago when I was talking about Fleener's versatility. Can't be bothered finding it, however.

Making ignorant and stupid statements is a very common theme with you.

Neverend
04-07-2012, 02:55 PM
Ah, here it is:

http://boards.giants.com/forums/3/2504459/ShowThread.aspx#2504459

When someone suggested Fleener's ability as an in-line blocker will impress scouts and I said he's subbed out a lot in-line on obvious run downs for stanford in the most recent games I was watching at the time. You're response as followed:


Wait ...what?

You are confusing Fleener with someone else. The guy lines up tight to the line almost every play. When he doesnt, he is in a H-back position, but that was used far less this year than 2010. Stanford runs a VERY pro style offense.

Ah... speaks volumes about your ignorance and tendency to stay dumb things, doesn't it? Should be vastly entertaining watching you explain how "almost every play" means "usually half the time" and "h-back" was meant to mean "in the slot and out wide".

BlueSanta
04-07-2012, 03:17 PM
Ah, here it is:

http://boards.giants.com/forums/3/2504459/ShowThread.aspx#2504459

When someone suggested Fleener's ability as an in-line blocker will impress scouts and I said he's subbed out a lot in-line on obvious run downs for stanford in the most recent games I was watching at the time. You're response as followed:


Wait ...what?

You are confusing Fleener with someone else. The guy lines up tight to the line almost every play. When he doesnt, he is in a H-back position, but that was used far less this year than 2010. Stanford runs a VERY pro style offense.

Ah... speaks volumes about your ignorance and tendency to stay dumb things, doesn't it?

Again lets review what I said n your link there compared with what you say I said.

You say I said the following :

you saying Fleener is <u>only</u> lined up tight to the
line because stanford plays a pro style offense.

What I actually said within the link YOU provided:

The guy lines up tight to the line <u>almost every</u> play.

You see the difference there? Do you understand the difference between the words "only" and "almost every?"

1 implies "every time" the other implies "a majority of the time."

Are you actually trying to say Fleener wasn't tight to the line a majority of the time?

Neverend
04-07-2012, 03:27 PM
Funny how you also avoid mentioning, that when he isn't on "almost every play" it's only as an H-back. (which is pretty much you saying he's lined up tight every single play) And now trying to downplay what you meant by "almost". May have quoted you wrong but don't sit here and pretend like that still makes the statement YOU made any less ignorant and wrong. More and more entertaining watching you trying to go around an ignorant, stupid statement, or that what I posted eliminates the context out of what you absolutely meant.

After someone linked here what greg cosell (one of the more well respected film evaluators) said about randle was reading through his tweets and came across this from a few days ago


Greg Cosell?@gregcosellReply
Retweet

Favorite
Open

Asked about Fleener. Fluid route runner. Lateral quicks. Short area burst. Ability to attack vertical seams. Reminded me of HOU O. Daniels.

Quickness and burst to his game. Wonder why someone think that. I thought his game was mostly speed and not much else

BlueSanta
04-07-2012, 03:34 PM
Quickness and burst to his game. Wonder why someone think that. I thought his game was mostly speed and not much else

I said that?

Nah its more likely that ...
I May have quoted you wrong

and also....
My reading comprehension may be terrible or something



This discussion is pointless, these 2 quotes show exactly why. Ttyl gluck with your last word

Neverend
04-07-2012, 03:37 PM
You are confusing Fleener with someone else. The guy lines up tight to the line almost every play. When he doesnt, he is in a H-back position but that was used far less this year than 2010. Stanford runs a VERY pro style offense.

Lol.

Loving the backtracking, downplaying, and the ignorance. Pretty much sums up how you go about thinking and like to talk out of your rear end

Have a well afternoon

Neverend
04-07-2012, 04:25 PM
Let me follow this one last time


At 7:00 he runs a vertical post route, that is almost exclusively a vertical straight line speed route, not a quickness route.That supports my claim that Fleener gains separation from speed, not so much quickness.

Me


Gaining separation on a post route has little to do with speed, maintaining separation.. sure. But the initial separation is all about the quickness out of the break, which you clearly saw.

You


. The route you mention is a good example of speed, and has little to do with quickness. In fact, the post is the 2nd straightest route of all the traditional routes in football. Few routes show straight line speed better than a post. Few routes will show quickness less than a post.

Me


In my opinion, quickness is all about the stem.. measured by the explosiveness you show sticking your foot in the ground. In that route, you saw excellent quickness in that particular play. He wasnt "almost exclusively" running in a straight line.

You


Also ,a Post route <font size="3">only</font> shows speed not quickness The 2nd straightest route in football is not a good example of quickness.

Pretty much where you lose the argument.

And when I call you out on that stupid statement about fleener not showing quickness in that route because of the route he ran (his argument), he goes to the "i didnt say that" when infact by his responses thats exactly what he meant

And when he quotes my argument as being as:


Saying "look how quick this guy is in this clip" then showing a post route is pointless

When infact my point way more complicated than that. Then I do the same thing to him to see what he says:


Glad you repeated your point about "that's not quickenss because it was a post route".

He starts crying about how that's not what he said and how dare I quote him like that.. when he just did that with my argument. Then he keeps going on about reading comprehension because of this. The hypocrisy is hilarous!

And then based on all the points he repeatedly kept mentioning about Fleener not displaying quickness in that route because its a post route that is won on speed:


Your definiton of quickness is not how a fast a receiver explodes out of a stem or how fluid they are in and out of their breaks -- but by rather the route they ran. So you're saying if a receiver runs a go, but didn't get get separation and made the catch with a defender draped over him, he has great speed because go routes are all about speed?

He goes to the classic thats not what I meant route.. because he knows he can't dispute a thing I stated here

Not gonna even mention how he tried to explain how he Fleener got no separation. Called him out on the stupidity of that statement, and he backtracks on it

Called him out on the stupidity of saying fleener is only lined up inline for stanford "except as an hback". He thinks me not mentioning the hback part somehow takes away the context of his ignorance and making stupid statements about Fleener.

Yep, his inability to dispute anything about Fleener's display of quickness atop his stem in that route other than "its a post route. post route = speed not quickness" as i quoted in this post, him claiming fleener got no separation (then backtracking), him being completely dumbfounded & unable to respond anytime I make analogies/supporting facts that destroys his argument (goes to the classic "i didnt say that" route), shows classic hypocrisy when i do the same thing he does, and got flat out exposed about his ignorance and stupidity when it comes to things about Fleener and how he is used in stanford's offense...

Just goes to show how utterly sad it is when a man lives in a such a close mind he can't even come close to admitting he's wrong so he tries to go around it. Its so entertaining, but also sad. Worst part is... he may actually still believe fleener never got separation on the play, never displayed any quickness, and is only an h-back for stanford when he isnt lined up tight to the line. The ignorance.

nevada11
04-11-2012, 08:07 PM
Man the egos nowadays. fleener was both quick and fast. not just fast, not just quick. debate solved. we all is happy now? :)

Neverend
04-12-2012, 12:06 AM
Man the egos nowadays. fleener was both quick and fast. not just fast, not just quick. debate solved. we all is happy now? :)

Um, it wasn't so much about "ego".

I was just trying to argue the explosion atop his stem was a great example of quickness to the post. Just wanted to make a point to show fleener can be quick in his routes, wasn't trying to be egotistical or something

I made a pretty solid point too. An oustandingly quick stem, is an oustandingly quick stem. Like when a wide receiver is at the line of scrimmage and trying to evade the corner, usually they break one way and go the other by generating an explosive stem (like fleener did downfield). In this instance, is the receiver considered laterally fast or laterally quick? Showing a quick, explosive stem to evade press coverage is always described as being laterally quick. Which is another reason why I feel Fleener showed great quickness to the post on the play, not running "almost straight line" by someone with just pure speed

How many times we see Cruz separate by simply just sticking his foot in the ground and having an explosive stem to gain separation. Always referred to as being quick

I'd really, really like to know how is that me having an ego. Please explain why you would take a baseless jab like that

nevada11
04-13-2012, 03:15 AM
Man the egos nowadays. fleener was both quick and fast. not just fast, not just quick. debate solved. we all is happy now? :)

Um, it wasn't so much about "ego".

I was just trying to argue the explosion atop his stem was a great example of quickness to the post. Just wanted to make a point to show fleener can be quick in his routes, wasn't trying to be egotistical or something

I made a pretty solid point too. An oustandingly quick stem, is an oustandingly quick stem. Like when a wide receiver is at the line of scrimmage and trying to evade the corner, usually they break one way and go the other by generating an explosive stem (like fleener did downfield). In this instance, is the receiver considered laterally fast or laterally quick? Showing a quick, explosive stem to evade press coverage is always described as being laterally quick. Which is another reason why I feel Fleener showed great quickness to the post on the play, not running "almost straight line" by someone with just pure speed

How many times we see Cruz separate by simply just sticking his foot in the ground and having an explosive stem to gain separation. Always referred to as being quick

I'd really, really like to know how is that me having an ego. Please explain why you would take a baseless jab like that

Just ashamed how people can not have polite debates anymore

Neverend
04-13-2012, 05:20 PM
Man the egos nowadays. fleener was both quick and fast. not just fast, not just quick. debate solved. we all is happy now? :)

Um, it wasn't so much about "ego".

I was just trying to argue the explosion atop his stem was a great example of quickness to the post. Just wanted to make a point to show fleener can be quick in his routes, wasn't trying to be egotistical or something

I made a pretty solid point too. An oustandingly quick stem, is an oustandingly quick stem. Like when a wide receiver is at the line of scrimmage and trying to evade the corner, usually they break one way and go the other by generating an explosive stem (like fleener did downfield). In this instance, is the receiver considered laterally fast or laterally quick? Showing a quick, explosive stem to evade press coverage is always described as being laterally quick. Which is another reason why I feel Fleener showed great quickness to the post on the play, not running "almost straight line" by someone with just pure speed

How many times we see Cruz separate by simply just sticking his foot in the ground and having an explosive stem to gain separation. Always referred to as being quick

I'd really, really like to know how is that me having an ego. Please explain why you would take a baseless jab like that

Just ashamed how people can not have polite debates anymore

Was initially making a point, thats all... The fact you think I'm doing it to prove my "ego" is pretty hilarious. You seem to have completely lost your grasp on reality it seems like.