PatPatPatSack Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 No, you're ignoring the fact that there are hundreds of scouts for the NFL and they watch the games closer than you do and they 754142[/snapback] Uh, if you ask me, these hundreds of scouts have just put mr nance on the sidelines for good. And it is a stretch to think someone is putting him back on the field. This thread reminds me of the old saying, "It is better to speak up and be thought a fool, and turn out to be right, than to sit there and talk trash after you took a wild assed position and were wrong yet again." just sayin'.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDRupp Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 Thank You. Damn, people get offended when an internet creation (Nance) makes everyone not look so brilliant after all. By they way.....the MAC opens up this Thursday......stay tuned for the next big time MAC wideout to start putting up numbers this Thursday. The cycle will continue. 753988[/snapback] Internet creation? He was without a doubt a very good MAC WR and pretty much all the internet site for the NFL Draft had him pegged as a late rounder or a FA. That's what he was and is a FA that still may project and grow into a NFL roster talent level WR. If he can't make the Bills he is not ready and might not ever be. If you mean internet creation b/c a handfill of posters on TDB tout him as a great player, then point taken. Of course then in a matter of a couple of years your "MAC WR's-never-pan-theoty" could very well turn out to be just another "internet creation". Go Jennings! Go Schieffler ! Go Troy Brown! Go Justin MacCariens! Go Randy Moss! Hmmm go back 5-6 yrs ago and you could say the WR position was better then QB position in the NFL. What a couple of years and a couple of WR's would do. Of course not being anything other than a luke warm college footbacll fan compared to the NFL, I really dont care other than I love the underdogs. Just trying to point out that in 2-3 yrs a lot can change especially if Nance or Ridgway or those other WMU guys already doing pretty find a way to be effective NFS WR's. Point taken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 I explained at the time, that MAC WR's, even Ridgeway, never make it. Never. That includes all of Pennington, Leftwich, Culpeppers, Gradkowski's, Frye's, Omar Jacobs and Josh Harris' WR's too. Not to mention Ridgeway, who was drafted and cut by SL before joining and being cut by NY. The only exception, was pretty much Randy Moss. MAC skill positions, outside of QB, rarely ever pan out in the NFL. They have put a few backup RB's in the league, but rarely WR's outside of Randy Moss. Nance was a big time internet creation. Sorry, I was just frustrated at the Miami dude. 753930[/snapback] Just because everyone else is hanging it on you, I thought I'd join in a little.... You can't generalize by saying NEVER & then give an exception. That is logically incorrect. I think this is part of what got up people a bit here. Simply toned down to 'rarely' would have saved you heaps of flak. BTW, I don't see what's so wrong about saying one school/conference produces/doesn't produce good/bad players at a certain position. I know sweet FA about college football but I must have heard a gazillion times on this board how Ohio State produces great DBs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 And again, you're totally guessing based on nothing. Nance is out there with a week and half left until teams first games. Yeah, he could be on the practice squad. Matter of fact, I hope he is. However, if he's worth anything, he'll get picked up by someone. ... ....Peters is another animal all together, with athleticism and from a major conference. Nance probably lacks skills to get open against highly talented defenders. Peters never lacked that skill. He was just without a position initially. 753972[/snapback] Ummm....how come if 'Nance is worth anything, he'll get picked up by someone(else)' & Peters who 'never lacked that skill' didn't get picked up by someone(else)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 BTW, I don't see what's so wrong about saying one school/conference produces/doesn't produce good/bad players at a certain position. I know sweet FA about college football but I must have heard a gazillion times on this board how Ohio State produces great DBs. 754868[/snapback] You're talking about two completely different animals. One school can produce good players at a given position because of good coaching in that area, and once they gain the reputation for handling a position well, the big-time high school recruits will see it as a more desirable place to play. As top-level recruits begin going to a certain school for this reason, the cycle not only continues but grows because this reputation the school has for producing well at that position becomes more and more prevelant and thus more and more top-level recruits want to go there, and it goes on and on. This effect isn't very likely to surface on a broad, conference-wide generalization, such as "all receivers who go to a MAC school are doomed to fail in the NFL." The reason is that few people would ever realize an entire college football conference isn't producing at one individual position. And even if they did notice, few people would give it any significance because the basis of it makes no sense. It's unrealistic to believe that every team in a college football conference has some sort of flaw that stops recruits from succeeding in the NFL when they otherwise would have had a good career. I personally find believing that to be preposterous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted August 29, 2006 Share Posted August 29, 2006 You're talking about two completely different animals. One school can produce good players at a given position because of good coaching in that area, and once they gain the reputation for handling a position well, the big-time high school recruits will see it as a more desirable place to play. As top-level recruits begin going to a certain school for this reason, the cycle not only continues but grows because this reputation the school has for producing well at that position becomes more and more prevelant and thus more and more top-level recruits want to go there, and it goes on and on. This effect isn't very likely to surface on a broad, conference-wide generalization, such as "all receivers who go to a MAC school are doomed to fail in the NFL." The reason is that few people would ever realize an entire college football conference isn't producing at one individual position. And even if they did notice, few people would give it any significance because the basis of it makes no sense. It's unrealistic to believe that every team in a college football conference has some sort of flaw that stops recruits from succeeding in the NFL when they otherwise would have had a good career. I personally find believing that to be preposterous. 754917[/snapback] Well put. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts