Training Camp Thread

[MickeyDavis]

Lots of guys with "athletic gifts" working at Burger King. I'll be surprised if Underwood ever amounts to anything in the NFL.

[Newz]

Lots of guys with "athletic gifts" working at Burger King. I'll be surprised if Underwood ever amounts to anything in the NFL.

Good example of elite talent vs. elite player as discussed in the other thread when it comes to Finley.

[ReasonablySober]

Except one dominates and the other one doesn't.

[emunney]

Underwood is not THAT talented.

[Newz]

Except one dominates and the other one doesn't.

Someone said in the other thread they couldn't understand the difference between elite talent and elite player.

Here is an example. A guy hangs on to a roster spot just due to his physical abilities, but he is poop as a player.

[ClassicJack]

Underwood is not THAT talented.

This.

at the implication that he has elite talent at anything other than getting arrested for stupid sh*t.

[emunney]

Pretty much.

That said, for me there is an important distinction to be made between the quality of a player and his talent level. It's just that I don't think there's a gap between the two for Finley at this point. When he came into the league, yes.

There are plenty of guys who are either substantially better or worse as players than I'd evaluate them in terms of raw talent. Ryan Leaf was a huge talent and a very bad player. Peprah is a solid football player in spite of being extremely limited in standard measures of talent.

[Kerb Hohl]

Finley is a great talent, a great player, that has injury issues.

What about his numbers when he played the last two says otherwise?

[Kerb Hohl]

Except one dominates and the other one doesn't.

Someone said in the other thread they couldn't understand the difference between elite talent and elite player.

Here is an example. A guy hangs on to a roster spot just due to his physical abilities, but he is poop as a player.

Underwood: Can jump, run, good size = elite talent.
However, can't figure out football = not elite player.

Understood.

Finley: Can jump, run, great size = elite talent.
Dominates while on the field before he's even hit his prime....


If Underwood is honestly what you'd consider an "elite talent" then yes, there is a massive difference between elite talent and elite player.

Still wondering where Jermichael fits in there, though.

[emunney]

Except one dominates and the other one doesn't.

Someone said in the other thread they couldn't understand the difference between elite talent and elite player.

Here is an example. A guy hangs on to a roster spot just due to his physical abilities, but he is poop as a player.

I'd say in direct response to this that Underwood has held on by the skin of his teeth because he's a good enough player, but that he has the talent to be a guy who's a roster lock. I don't think they're holding onto him because of his potential. I think his gifts make him a good enough player to stick around, just barely.

[Greatness]

Wow these Finley debates just start in any thread

[Kerb Hohl]

This whole elite talent/elite player argument reminds me of the argument of Matty Ice and the fact that the Packers can't "close out games" and all that jazz before the Falcons playoff game.

People are just making things up.

[Newz]

Underwood: Can jump, run, good size = elite talent.
However, can't figure out football = not elite player.

Understood.

Finley: Can jump, run, great size = elite talent.
Dominates while on the field before he's even hit his prime....


If Underwood is honestly what you'd consider an "elite talent" then yes, there is a massive difference between elite talent and elite player.

Still wondering where Jermichael fits in there, though.

I'm not saying Underwood is an elite athlete or talent.

I'm saying that your level of talent doesn't always indicate how good of a player you are. In this case they believe Underwood should stick around because of his potential (due to his physical ability or 'talent'), but he really isn't that good of a player.

If 'elite talent' always equalled 'elite production', then every first round draft pick would end up being a great player. You'd just draft the guy with the most physical gifts... the Oakland Raiders would be like the greatest team ever.

[Kerb Hohl]

But Finley has produced. He's gotten hurt.

It's one thing to talk about Aaron Maybin as a guy that can't produce that has the talent.

All Jermichael has done to not produce is get injured.

If Jermichael is healthy, do you think he's only going to go for about 550 on 40 catches and 5 TDs (pedestrian numbers for 16 games) because that is his production or something? That seems to be what you're implying, or you can just admit that he's an elite player when he's on the field.

I guess one of the closest examples I can think of is Yovani Gallardo. Or maybe Ben Sheets in a different way. Yovani was really good, had a freak injury. Did you expect him not to be able to produce when he got back on the field for a full season?

Sheets is similar. He obviously produces when healthy. So when he gets on the field, don't you expect him to play well?

I mean, don't you agree with this? I'm not trying to predict if Jermichael will have a "productive" career or whether it has been yet. The argument is, if he's healthy, he's going to be in the class of Gates and Vernon Davis. I don't see how anybody can really disagree with that.

I know we have different definitions, but I'll shut up if you answer this:

My definition at this moment of an elite player is in a one game sample, or small game sample, if the guy is 100% healthy, he's going to dominate the game. All I'm worried about is the next game.

Does he fit that definition? If so, I'll let you continue on and you can watch Mark Schlareth and Trent Dilfer discuss top 5 TE production in the NFL. All I care about is him helping the Packers. I'll worry about his injury issues but if he's healthy, I'm not going to worry about him being a dominant player, because that is exactly what he is. If he starts getting hurt again, I think I'll worry about injury issues but know that if I can have him healthy, he's a tremendous player.

I guess the peeve is that you're almost treating him as if he's some raw, unpolished player that has never put up stats but can jump out of the building like some 19 year old HS draftee in the NBA that shined in 5 minutes off the bench a few times.

[Newz]

No, I never considered Ben Sheets 'elite'. One because even when healthy he probably wasn't at the elite level and two, like I said, I obviously believe that durability is a lot bigger part in it than you guys do.

I've also already said it wouldn't shock me in the least to see him produce at an elite level if he could stay healthy over the span of a full season. But again, I would structure that sentance:

"IF Finley can stay healthy for a full season and will PROBABLY put up elite numbers that MIGHT be on the level of the elite seasons Davis, Gates and the other great TEs have achieved."

I don't really want to get into it again. I just saw that quote about Underwood and thought it as a good example of how physical talent doesn't always add up to having an impact as a player. I think he has all the physical tools to be a good corner in the NFL, he just isn't.

[Kerb Hohl]

Yeah, that pretty much settles it then.

We're arguing stupid semantics, and this reminds me of that Falcons debate where people were picking stupid bull out of the sky to try to believe the Falcons just had this magical clutch factor.

Obviously you have results to just try to say that he can't stay healthy enough, but you've called him a dominant player when he's healthy in just a different set of words. Makes sense to me.

If the guy is injury-prone throughout his career, of course I'll look back and say he was a disappointment. However, he had a weird injury last year and what I'm concerned about is the fact that he is the most dominant player this offense has outside of Rodgers when healthy, and I'm not going to let 1 freak injury (and a small one that most players get the year before) bother me right now.

Durability is really nice, but in a short NFL season with tremendous depth, I don't necessarily care as much about it. Otherwise, we probably don't draft James Starks. Adrian Peterson's stupid durability issues in college from a small injury and a freak collarbone thing probably drop him way down, etc. Your argument isn't dumb like that one, but it is a similar stupid, nitpicky argument.

Obviously there are guys that you worried about durability and they really lived up to that billing. You take those risks on guys that have shown that when they are on the field, they are the best player on the field.

[Kerb Hohl]

I hope the result of this argument turns out like this:

I guess. The Falcons have only lost twice at home since Ryan took over at QB.

I'm not saying it's a lock, but if I wasn't a Packer fan I'd definitely put money on them beating us by 3 or more. If it moves up to 3.5 or whatever, then I wouldn't put any money down.

Well, we've already proven we can beat them there (we do beat them there if we get one more yard and don't fumble), so I think that is as relevant as their home record. I also think the fact that our D is playing this well and we haven't trailed by more than a TD all season is very relevant to a discussion on point spread. I'm guessing it will be a low scoring game in the high teens/low 20's.

I think it's safe to say that the odds are in the favor of the Falcons beating us by 3 or more.

If you disagree I don't think you are being honest with yourself.

[Newz]

We're arguing stupid semantics

I've pretty much said that a few times. We clearly just have different opinions of what defines a player as 'elite'... I guess that's what I've been trying to say. I want a player to put up 16 games (or close to it). When he does that and if he puts up 1,100 yards and 10 TDs or something like that, then he's elite to me. (Obviously those numbers aren't set in stone, just ones I am throwing out there)

But guys like Gates and Davis have put up 950 yards and 13 TDs, 1,150 yards and 8 TDs, etc. That validates elite to me, when you can do it for a whole year and do it for a high level... then when you do that for multiple years in a row you move above elite to Hall of Fame level, etc.

Now maybe Finley won't put up quite as big of numbers because he has more weapons around him, maybe he puts up better numbers because he has a better QB. Maybe he just isn't quite as good as those guys or whatever. But he certainly passes the eye test and he's had some monster games. I just want to see him do it for a whole season, to prove he can do it for 16+ games in a row. To me that is very important, especially when labeling a guy 'elite'.

I agree with the rest of your post as well, I just don't want to quote it all and take up the whole screen.

[Newz]

I hope the result of this argument turns out like this:

I still think we were underdogs going into that game.

If you notice (other) Luke was wrong as well, predicting it to be a low scoring game.

[Kerb Hohl]

Yeah, we have different thought processes. You like some of the hard data and results.

You: Falcons beat us last time. They win close games. They had a better record.

Us: We have a more explosive team playing better. Their "clutch" is overrated. The +/- of ours points to us being better.

You: Jermichael had X numbers. Those are the facts. Y yards and Z catches. Those numbers over a season say not elite.

Us: As long as he plays, Jermichael is as good as X and Y player. His Z yards per catch tells me he's an elite player as long as he's on the field.




The only thing I'll disagree with you on is "proof that he can do it for a whole year." Yeah, if you're saying injury, that's fine. But Jermichael is really good. If he plays 16 games or so, he's going to put up monster numbers. The only thing holding him back may be the talent around him suppressing the numbers, not if he is an elite player or not.