Quote:If only the first line was true...sigh. For example, we (being many of the college football board on here vs me) debated a play where Randy Gregory absolutely destroyed Erick Flowers, but the UM QB got the ball off just before the sack. I said this was a pretty clear sign of trouble when Flowers is getting put on skates by a bull rush from a player where size and power was his biggest weakness. Way too many people simply said that the play didn't result in a sack so Flowers won the duel. So no, unfortunately it's not evident to some people when a player has real ability or a lack theirof.


The second part, I never said how big of a percentage of the pie it is...because no one truly knows. I also didn't say that athletic ability is an indicator of success, although it usually is. I simply said a fact that was true. There is no rejection or denial for what I said it's just the truth.

This is my bad. Yes, truly everyone watching does not necessarily know what a legit football player looks like. Also, everyone who looks legit does not always equal they are long term legit.

SPARQ charts, for example, rate athletic ability based on the available pool and one can also be done historically? This is useful in creating mismatches. If you have a receiver who rates high historically in athletic ability, a la Julio Jones, he may prove to be a problem for an undersized corner. Using that determine the success of a dlineman would prove to be many times harder. This is the push back you are feeling. It is why ppl are throwing Beasley in your face, although his short comings may have nothing to do with his athletic ability.

The dline coach for Atlanta may not be on par with our dline coach and so and so forth.

---