I agree about Posluszny

[Sketch Soland]

OK lets do a quick recap:

 

1. you said that you have doubts that Puz can play in the cover 2 defense

 

2. I pointed out the fact that Penn State plays a zone-intenstive defense which is pretty much the college equivilent of the cover 2. I think this is a pretty good indication of whether he's a good fit for the cover 2 or not.

 

IMO, it's a good indication that he's a good fit for playing Cover-2 in college. It certainly shows an extensive familiarity with a similar defense, which is a good thing, of course, but his ability to execute a similiar defense in the NFL is a different question, imho, because an NFL Cover-2 requires a certain caliber of athlete that a college cover-2 does not require due to the lesser quality of athletes one faces in college. I am not yet convinced that the Pos is an NFL Cover-2 linebacker on a pure athletic level. No one is doubting he's a great football player, but is he the athlete necessary to play as an NFL Cover-2 linebacker? I have doubts about this, imho.

 

3. you reply back saying, and i quite: "So you're saying that Big 10 offenses composed of Big 10 players are the equivalent of NFL offenses and NFL players in terms of speed, size, and complexity and that the minimum skill set that it takes to dominate said Big 10 offenses as a OLB in a College Cover-2 Scheme directly correlates to the same skill set necessary to dominate NFL offenses and NFL players as a player in a NFL Cover-2 Defense?" Essentially I inferred from this 3 things:

 

This is the big problem I had with your response. Your inferences put words in my mouth and assumed things that I didn't say at all. I asked you if you were saying that the skill set required to dominate as a cover-2 college LB was the same skill set needed to dominate as an NFL Cover-2 Linebacker. Your response was littered with assumptions that you inferred based upon one question that I asked. Forgive me if I take issue with this method of twisting my words to suit your own argumentative purposes.

 

a. First that you don't think that you can compare Puz in a college cover two defesne because he played against college teams which are composed of college level talent.

 

My initial question asked you if you would say that the skill set of a Cover-2 College LB is the skill set needed to be a Cover-2 NFL LB. You responded, to which I then said that imo a higher caliber athlete is required to play NFL Cover-2 LB and that familiarity with the system via a similar college system and natural football instincts (which Poz has in spades) are essentially subordinate issues if you are not the athlete required to play the NFL Cover-2 system, a system which is predicated on speed and athleticism. IMO, I am not yet convinced that the Pos is a NFL Cover-2 LB, as others are not as well. This is my opinion and yours differs and that's great. Just don't twist my words like your opinion is the only one that matters and is true because you alone employ "logic" and "common sense".

 

b. you think that because these two don't "directly correlate" that him being productive in a college cover-2 can't be used as an indication of whether he'll be good in the NFL.

 

Being a dominant college cover-2 LB is obviously an indication of potential to play in an NFL Cover-2 system. It is merely, however, one piece of a potential puzzle that may end up fitting and may not. There are a myriad of other factors to be considered when judging a player's potential fit for whatever system that you run. All LB's drafted in the draft come from college having been highly productive players, but that does not mean that all of them go on to be productive NFL players, including 1st round graded players. There may be only one or two "1st round graded" LBers that we think are fits for the Cover-2 Defense. I am not yet convinced the Pos is this fit, which is not a slight to his ability. At the moment, I think he is a great 1st round prospect for a different kind of system. But that is just my opinion, albeit it "illogical", as you say, or "not based upon common sense", which are two terms that you use as equivalent to "doesn't agree with me".

 

c. Lastly if Puz in a cover 2 like defense in the big-10 is not a indication of whether or not he'll be good in an NFL cover two, soley becuase the systems is a little different and the players aren't as good, then you are inferring that judging a player, ANY player by what they did in college (because it was against lesser competition then the NFL) should not be a determining factor. You did not say this directly but that's what your faulty logic implies.

 

Thank You. I did not say it. You extrapolate things from my question that I did not say at all and put words in my mouth to craft a counter argument against my question.

 

So on to your Questions, Concerns and Comments...

 

number 1...

 

I said "So are you saying that you can't judge any player on their college performance becuase the competition they play against does not "directly correlates," to the type of talent in the NFL?"

 

You replied: "Did I say that? Please show me in my post where I said that. I merely questioned how you judge the Poz as being suited for a NFL Cover-2 Defense based upon his experience playing in a similar defense in college."

 

My response to you is pretty much letter c above.

 

And your "questioning" how I judge Puz as being suited for the NFL cover-2 defense based on his experience playing in the similar defense in college is the illogic that made me respond so ademently.

 

Are you unfamiliar with "questioning"? I'm just asking because it seems to me that you and I have differing ideas about what it entails. IMHO, it's when one person asks how another person arrives at a certain conclusion. The person that asks expects the other person to respond stating how they arrived at a certain conclusion. This reciprocal give and take hopefully results in a greater depth of information being passed between both people so that they may refine their own opinions about the subject at hand if necessary. Sometimes, however, if one person is so dead set in stone about their own opinion and think they are "right" and possess the "truth" of the matter, they can become upset when the other person raises issues or objections that do not gel with the true right opinion that they deem themselves to have. This usually results in a breakdown of civil debate, as the person who possesses the "true" and "right" opinion can resort to insults and twisting of words in order to browbeat the other into accepting his obviously right opinion.

 

How you can just dismiss the similarties is just mind-blowing. I'm not saying that he's a sure thing or just because he played in a similar defense in college that it would mean that he's going to be a stud in the NFL, but if should "alieviate" any of your concerns that he wouldn't be a good fit in the cover two.

 

No, it doesn't alleviate any of my concerns because I am not convinced he is the caliber athlete that is required to play in the Cover-2. This is my opinion. There is absolutely no point in drafting a LB in the 1st round if he doesn't fit our scheme and in my opinion at the moment he does not. If the Bills draft him, we will know they think he does fit and I certainly place an almost infinite more stock in their football knowledge than mine, so time will tell there.

 

Your real concern would then be his talent level, not whether he'd fit into a defense that he's practicially already played in.

number 2....

 

My real concern is not his talent as an instinctive football player, which is obviously superb, which anyone that has seen him play would tell you, but his ability to play as an NFL Cover-2 LB where a premium is placed on speed and athleticism.

 

I said "Or because the offenseive and defensive systems are not identical? DON'T BE A F*CKIN ASS AND DO SOME GOD FORESAKEN RESEARCH!!"

 

Your siad "Who's being the ass? And how was my question indicative of someone who has not done any "research"?"

 

my response: maybe research was the wrong word, logic and common sense would be more approriate, because you have none of it in your post.

 

I think I have covered this already.

 

So i apoligize for saying research. as for the rest i don't have the time to go point-by-point...

but let me just conclude by saying this. No one knows whether he's going to be good in the NFL or not. In fact now one knows if any player is going to be the next peyton manning or the next ryan leaf. HOWEVER, there are things you can look for to see if a player is going to be a good fit for your team... And the fact that Puz has played in a zone defense in college should give you a good indication that he would fit into that system in the NFL. No rather he'll be "great" in that system, we'll have to wait and see. But it is completely illogical to dismiss the fact that he played in a similar defense because it wasn't the exact same and against lesser talent.

 

I think I have sufficiently logical and straight forward in expressing my opinion and touching on the points you have raised. You are more than welcome to critique my own conceptions but please refrain from putting words in my mouth or assuming I have said something when I have not typed it in a post.