This is very similar to my view. Guys are labeling Mattison a bad pick simply over 1 thing....his combine 40 time (which he ran terrible 4.67). It was simply a bad run. His pro day 40 was a 4.52 which is nearly identical to over half the nfl starting backs. This is what happens when guys look at the surface of things or a draft “experts” opinion. Mattison is not slow. And since I’ve made that point and provided the facts, that argument has fizzled out. You’re exactly right though. Nobody knows anything. Granted we can all have our opinions but we won’t know anything for quite some time now. We don’t know what these players will do, who we missed out on, who won’t make an impact and made the right decision passing on, what our draft board looked like, etc. We know nothing until the season gets here.
Stop comparing Pro day numbers to combine numbers. I doesn't work that way. Player A ran a 4.45 at his pro day. Player B ran a 4.45 at the combine. I will put money on it that player B is faster than Player A. Most pro day times are hand times and or not as accurate as the combine.
I hope every guy we drafted turns out to be a legit stud, because we need them to and their Vikings. It doesn't change the fact that right now it looks like we wasted at least 3 of the 4 late rounders we gained.
No I’m not going to stop comparing them. If hand held times weren’t accurate at pro days and the combine is so “accurate” then why would they bother testing them times at a players pro day? The scouts want to time players themselves down on the field. Hand held times are more consistent as it says in the article below.
Kareem Hunt ran a 4.62 at his combine. James Conner ran a 4.65. Leveon Bell ran a 4.60. I can keep going. Did it really matter? Were they called a “waste of a pick” because they had a slow 40 at the combine? No. His pro day times match up with over half the leagues starting RBs pro day times. It’s a poor way to judge a running back and say if he’s a “waste of a pick” or not. It’s a bad argument on your end. Simple as that
The saddest thing in life is wasted talent and the choices you make will shape your life forever.
-Chazz Palminteri
Stop comparing Pro day numbers to combine numbers. I doesn't work that way. Player A ran a 4.45 at his pro day. Player B ran a 4.45 at the combine. I will put money on it that player B is faster than Player A. Most pro day times are hand times and or not as accurate as the combine.
I hope every guy we drafted turns out to be a legit stud, because we need them to and their Vikings. It doesn't change the fact that right now it looks like we wasted at least 3 of the 4 late rounders we gained.
No I’m not going to stop comparing them. If hand held times weren’t accurate at pro days and the combine is so “accurate” then why would they bother testing them times at a players pro day? The scouts want to time players themselves down on the field. Hand held times are more consistent as it says in the article below.
Kareem Hunt ran a 4.62 at his combine. James Conner ran a 4.65. Leveon Bell ran a 4.60. I can keep going. Did it really matter? Were they called a “waste of a pick” because they had a slow 40 at the combine? No. His pro day times match up with over half the leagues starting RBs pro day times. It’s a poor way to judge a running back and say if he’s a “waste of a pick” or not. It’s a bad argument on your end. Simple as that
That article is as laughable as your argument. His stance on electronic times being inaccurate is that a coach COULD (in the past) miss the time a runner starts. Pro days gives that same coach two opportunities to #### up. The combine is a constant. Pro Days are not. Is the Alabama timer better than the Colorado timer at start and stop? BTW pro days are for players on a team that wasn't invited to the combine mostly. Scouts can come out and still get a look at a guy.
I relent though. Mattison is fast. He's our fastest player.
No I’m not going to stop comparing them. If hand held times weren’t accurate at pro days and the combine is so “accurate” then why would they bother testing them times at a players pro day? The scouts want to time players themselves down on the field. Hand held times are more consistent as it says in the article below.
Kareem Hunt ran a 4.62 at his combine. James Conner ran a 4.65. Leveon Bell ran a 4.60. I can keep going. Did it really matter? Were they called a “waste of a pick” because they had a slow 40 at the combine? No. His pro day times match up with over half the leagues starting RBs pro day times. It’s a poor way to judge a running back and say if he’s a “waste of a pick” or not. It’s a bad argument on your end. Simple as that
That article is as laughable as your argument. His stance on electronic times being inaccurate is that a coach COULD (in the past) miss the time a runner starts. Pro days gives that same coach two opportunities to #### up. The combine is a constant. Pro Days are not. Is the Alabama timer better than the Colorado timer at start and stop? BTW pro days are for players on a team that wasn't invited to the combine mostly. Scouts can come out and still get a look at a guy.
I relent though. Mattison is fast. He's our fastest player.
Well first of all, you’re putting words in my mouth. Find one time where I said Mattison was fast......instead of understanding where I’m coming from saying his speed is on par with many RBs you just wanna be a jerk about it instead. You’re saying he’s slow, I’m saying his speed is average. You’re going off of a combine time. I’m going off of a pro day time. WHY do they test a guys 40 at a pro day if it’s so inaccurate like you claim?? You have no answers. You have no argument. Again, you shy away from his speed being on par with over half the RBs in the league. You just keep complaining about his combine 40. Are these other nfl backs running 4.6 40s slow?? Bell, Hunt, Conner? What did it mean for them?? NOTHING. So what are you arguing? The guy hasn’t played a down and you’re saying that he was a reach and a bad pick because he had a low 40 time at the combine, just like bell, Conner and hunt. You have no defense against that. So you’re going nowhere with this argument. You can’t defend those guys times but then criticize Mattisons which is why you have no argument. Think he’s slow all you want, you or I know nothing until he gets on the field. If he’s running a 4.8 then yeah, he’s slow. You don’t need blazing speed to be a good RB or a good pick. So your opinion is based off of nothing other than you being mad over passing on butler. You can’t tell me a RB is a reach or a bad pick because of his 40 time. That’s just asinine
The saddest thing in life is wasted talent and the choices you make will shape your life forever.
-Chazz Palminteri
That article is as laughable as your argument. His stance on electronic times being inaccurate is that a coach COULD (in the past) miss the time a runner starts. Pro days gives that same coach two opportunities to #### up. The combine is a constant. Pro Days are not. Is the Alabama timer better than the Colorado timer at start and stop? BTW pro days are for players on a team that wasn't invited to the combine mostly. Scouts can come out and still get a look at a guy.
I relent though. Mattison is fast. He's our fastest player.
Well first of all, you’re putting words in my mouth. Find one time where I said Mattison was fast......instead of understanding where I’m coming from saying his speed is on par with many RBs you just wanna be a jerk about it instead. You’re saying he’s slow, I’m saying his speed is average. You’re going off of a combine time. I’m going off of a pro day time. WHY do they test a guys 40 at a pro day if it’s so inaccurate like you claim?? You have no answers. You have no argument. Again, you shy away from his speed being on par with over half the RBs in the league. You just keep complaining about his combine 40. Are these other nfl backs running 4.6 40s slow?? Bell, Hunt, Conner? What did it mean for them?? NOTHING. So what are you arguing? The guy hasn’t played a down and you’re saying that he was a reach and a bad pick because he had a low 40 time at the combine, just like bell, Conner and hunt. You have no defense against that. So you’re going nowhere with this argument. You can’t defend those guys times but then criticize Mattisons which is why you have no argument. Think he’s slow all you want, you or I know nothing until he gets on the field. If he’s running a 4.8 then yeah, he’s slow. You don’t need blazing speed to be a good RB or a good pick. So your opinion is based off of nothing other than you being mad over passing on butler. You can’t tell me a RB is a reach or a bad pick because of his 40 time. That’s just asinine
I explained why your comparison of Bell and Connor weren't accurate. Thos bigger guys had faster 3 cones AND all ran faster times than Mattison. Nothing to really explain. Speed is a combination of both. Our guy based on 3 cone and 40 is slow at both. Bell was uber quick but didnt have good long speed. Its not that hard to understand the argument....
Also, I didn't saw he was a bad pick because he was slow. I said he was a bad pick based on the round selected. If we got him in the 5th, I would be happier
Well first of all, you’re putting words in my mouth. Find one time where I said Mattison was fast......instead of understanding where I’m coming from saying his speed is on par with many RBs you just wanna be a jerk about it instead. You’re saying he’s slow, I’m saying his speed is average. You’re going off of a combine time. I’m going off of a pro day time. WHY do they test a guys 40 at a pro day if it’s so inaccurate like you claim?? You have no answers. You have no argument. Again, you shy away from his speed being on par with over half the RBs in the league. You just keep complaining about his combine 40. Are these other nfl backs running 4.6 40s slow?? Bell, Hunt, Conner? What did it mean for them?? NOTHING. So what are you arguing? The guy hasn’t played a down and you’re saying that he was a reach and a bad pick because he had a low 40 time at the combine, just like bell, Conner and hunt. You have no defense against that. So you’re going nowhere with this argument. You can’t defend those guys times but then criticize Mattisons which is why you have no argument. Think he’s slow all you want, you or I know nothing until he gets on the field. If he’s running a 4.8 then yeah, he’s slow. You don’t need blazing speed to be a good RB or a good pick. So your opinion is based off of nothing other than you being mad over passing on butler. You can’t tell me a RB is a reach or a bad pick because of his 40 time. That’s just asinine
I explained why your comparison of Bell and Connor weren't accurate. Thos bigger guys had faster 3 cones AND all ran faster times than Mattison. Nothing to really explain. Speed is a combination of both. Our guy based on 3 cone and 40 is slow at both. Bell was uber quick but didnt have good long speed. Its not that hard to understand the argument....
Also, I didn't saw he was a bad pick because he was slow. I said he was a bad pick based on the round selected. If we got him in the 5th, I would be happier
To be honest I’m beyond the point of continuing to go back and forth with you. I respect your opinion but I disagree. Simple as that. There are bad 3 cones and 40s across the league every year. But if I have to look at one more 40 time or combine numbers in general for any more of these players we drafted I might pull my hair out. As for when he was drafted, he was a projected 4th rounder and went with the last pick in the 3rd (practically 4th). He went right around where he should have. Maybe slightly earlier. We’ll see come season time if he was worth the pick. I believe he will be.
The saddest thing in life is wasted talent and the choices you make will shape your life forever.
-Chazz Palminteri
I explained why your comparison of Bell and Connor weren't accurate. Thos bigger guys had faster 3 cones AND all ran faster times than Mattison. Nothing to really explain. Speed is a combination of both. Our guy based on 3 cone and 40 is slow at both. Bell was uber quick but didnt have good long speed. Its not that hard to understand the argument....
Also, I didn't saw he was a bad pick because he was slow. I said he was a bad pick based on the round selected. If we got him in the 5th, I would be happier
To be honest I’m beyond the point of continuing to go back and forth with you. I respect your opinion but I disagree. Simple as that. There are bad 3 cones and 40s across the league every year. But if I have to look at one more 40 time or combine numbers in general for any more of these players we drafted I might pull my hair out. As for when he was drafted, he was a projected 4th rounder and went with the last pick in the 3rd (practically 4th). He went right around where he should have. Maybe slightly earlier. We’ll see come season time if he was worth the pick. I believe he will be.
I was going to post something similar. Lets hope he is a stud because he is a viking now.
CharVike wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:18 am
We didn't make the playoffs because we had people hurt. Let me take some guys off that Bear team and they wouldn't make the playoffs either. Lose Mack for a month +. And that's only one guy.Take out a couple CBs. Then remove some OL and the playoffs won't happen. We were in the hunt the last game. How many teams make the playoffs when they lose a bunch of guys. Plus that Bear D is miles ahead of us. Their scheme gets TOs. This f nut scheme we run doesn't want TOs. I know these rankings have us close but IMO were not in the same league regardless of some meaningless conversion %. I can riddle any team with injuries and the party will be over. If we stay healthy we will make the playoffs.
Teams deal with injuries every season and the Vikings were relatively lucky on the injury front this past season, especially on offense. Defensively they had players out for some games, but that was their strength last season. Not a valid excuse at for them failing.
You don't think "out for some games" matters? Hughes only played a few games and he at least created a TO. I could go on but we all see things differently regardless of what actually happened.
CharVike wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:18 am
We didn't make the playoffs because we had people hurt. Let me take some guys off that Bear team and they wouldn't make the playoffs either. Lose Mack for a month +. And that's only one guy.Take out a couple CBs. Then remove some OL and the playoffs won't happen. We were in the hunt the last game. How many teams make the playoffs when they lose a bunch of guys. Plus that Bear D is miles ahead of us. Their scheme gets TOs. This f nut scheme we run doesn't want TOs. I know these rankings have us close but IMO were not in the same league regardless of some meaningless conversion %. I can riddle any team with injuries and the party will be over. If we stay healthy we will make the playoffs.
Teams deal with injuries every season and the Vikings were relatively lucky on the injury front this past season, especially on offense. Defensively they had players out for some games, but that was their strength last season. Not a valid excuse at for them failing.
You don't think "out for some games" matters? Hughes only played a few games and he at least created a TO. I could go on but we all see things differently regardless of what actually happened.
Teams deal with injuries every season and the Vikings were relatively lucky on the injury front this past season, especially on offense. Defensively they had players out for some games, but that was their strength last season. Not a valid excuse at for them failing.
You don't think "out for some games" matters? Hughes only played a few games and he at least created a TO. I could go on but we all see things differently regardless of what actually happened.
Some games matter certainly matter, but again,every team every season loses players to injuries. Losing your 4th string CB isn't a huge loss though. That loss is actually going to have a bigger impact this season than last imo.
Here are the guys who were out longer than 4 games last season, you tell me who was irreplaceable:
Ade Aruna
Aviante Collins
Nick Easton
Craig James
Hercules Mata'afa
Jabari Price
Horace Richardson
Mike Hughes
Andrew Sendejo
Johnny Stanton
Mack Brown
Easton would have competed for starting LG and may have played better than Compton, but you still have a really bad Center and RG. Sendejo was a starter, but his injury was a positive as Harris is better. Outside of those two where are the significant injuries? The Bears lost Long, Callahan, and their top two TE's if we are comparing the two teams. They also lost their starting QB, their best defensive player, and their #1 WR for multiple games.
Both teams were relatively healthy though, one just played much better than the other while being relatively healthy. That is the reality not my perception of what went on.
CharVike wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2019 7:05 am
You don't think "out for some games" matters? Hughes only played a few games and he at least created a TO. I could go on but we all see things differently regardless of what actually happened.
Some games matter certainly matter, but again,every team every season loses players to injuries. Losing your 4th string CB isn't a huge loss though. That loss is actually going to have a bigger impact this season than last imo.
Here are the guys who were out longer than 4 games last season, you tell me who was irreplaceable:
Ade Aruna
Aviante Collins
Nick Easton
Craig James
Hercules Mata'afa
Jabari Price
Horace Richardson
Mike Hughes
Andrew Sendejo
Johnny Stanton
Mack Brown
Easton would have competed for starting LG and may have played better than Compton, but you still have a really bad Center and RG. Sendejo was a starter, but his injury was a positive as Harris is better. Outside of those two where are the significant injuries? The Bears lost Long, Callahan, and their top two TE's if we are comparing the two teams. They also lost their starting QB, their best defensive player, and their #1 WR for multiple games.
Both teams were relatively healthy though, one just played much better than the other while being relatively healthy. That is the reality not my perception of what went on.
I agree with you here. One thing I will say though, I think the main reason we had a "really bad center" is because he was surrounded by really bad guards. I think Elflein is a good player. Not great but not bad. He could very well start for us for a long time. He was just surrounded by garbage last year. Where the year prior he wasnt and played much better. Dont be surprised if it had to do with Flips offense is general too. You could (and should) see a huge turn around with Eflein this year, especially if he moves to guard where he excelled at in college.
The saddest thing in life is wasted talent and the choices you make will shape your life forever.
-Chazz Palminteri
Some games matter certainly matter, but again,every team every season loses players to injuries. Losing your 4th string CB isn't a huge loss though. That loss is actually going to have a bigger impact this season than last imo.
Here are the guys who were out longer than 4 games last season, you tell me who was irreplaceable:
Ade Aruna
Aviante Collins
Nick Easton
Craig James
Hercules Mata'afa
Jabari Price
Horace Richardson
Mike Hughes
Andrew Sendejo
Johnny Stanton
Mack Brown
Easton would have competed for starting LG and may have played better than Compton, but you still have a really bad Center and RG. Sendejo was a starter, but his injury was a positive as Harris is better. Outside of those two where are the significant injuries? The Bears lost Long, Callahan, and their top two TE's if we are comparing the two teams. They also lost their starting QB, their best defensive player, and their #1 WR for multiple games.
Both teams were relatively healthy though, one just played much better than the other while being relatively healthy. That is the reality not my perception of what went on.
I agree with you here. One thing I will say though, I think the main reason we had a "really bad center" is because he was surrounded by really bad guards. I think Elflein is a good player. Not great but not bad. He could very well start for us for a long time. He was just surrounded by garbage last year. Where the year prior he wasnt and played much better. Dont be surprised if it had to do with Flips offense is general too. You could (and should) see a huge turn around with Eflein this year, especially if he moves to guard where he excelled at in college.
Elf might be a good player, but he was a horrible center last season. Hopefully it was just injuries and if not, LG is a better spot for him.
I agree with you here. One thing I will say though, I think the main reason we had a "really bad center" is because he was surrounded by really bad guards. I think Elflein is a good player. Not great but not bad. He could very well start for us for a long time. He was just surrounded by garbage last year. Where the year prior he wasnt and played much better. Dont be surprised if it had to do with Flips offense is general too. You could (and should) see a huge turn around with Eflein this year, especially if he moves to guard where he excelled at in college.
Elf might be a good player, but he was a horrible center last season. Hopefully it was just injuries and if not, LG is a better spot for him.
I'm not saying he wasnt terrible. He was, but yeah his injuries and level of talent on both sides of him at guard, did not help him by any means
The saddest thing in life is wasted talent and the choices you make will shape your life forever.
-Chazz Palminteri
Elf might be a good player, but he was a horrible center last season. Hopefully it was just injuries and if not, LG is a better spot for him.
I'm not saying he wasnt terrible. He was, but yeah his injuries and level of talent on both sides of him at guard, did not help him by any means
If you recall, last year it was looking unclear whether Elflein would be ready for the start of the season. If we hadn't lost Easton to injury, it may well have been the case that Elflein would've been given more time to recover. I doubt he was at NFL level strength to start the year. Honestly, the coaches could probably be rightly blamed for playing him instead of Cornelius Edison or Brett Jones, but that's water under the bridge at this point. Bottom line, there is reason to believe Elflein will be significantly better this year, though we have to allow for the possibility that he simply won't rebound to his rookie form...I feel more comfortable facing that possibility with the selection of Drew Samia.
CharVike wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2019 7:05 am
You don't think "out for some games" matters? Hughes only played a few games and he at least created a TO. I could go on but we all see things differently regardless of what actually happened.
Some games matter certainly matter, but again,every team every season loses players to injuries. Losing your 4th string CB isn't a huge loss though. That loss is actually going to have a bigger impact this season than last imo.
Here are the guys who were out longer than 4 games last season, you tell me who was irreplaceable:
Ade Aruna
Aviante Collins
Nick Easton
Craig James
Hercules Mata'afa
Jabari Price
Horace Richardson
Mike Hughes
Andrew Sendejo
Johnny Stanton
Mack Brown
Easton would have competed for starting LG and may have played better than Compton, but you still have a really bad Center and RG. Sendejo was a starter, but his injury was a positive as Harris is better. Outside of those two where are the significant injuries? The Bears lost Long, Callahan, and their top two TE's if we are comparing the two teams. They also lost their starting QB, their best defensive player, and their #1 WR for multiple games.
Both teams were relatively healthy though, one just played much better than the other while being relatively healthy. That is the reality not my perception of what went on.
Why was a 4th CB playing so much? You act like he never saw the field and the 4th CB is worthless. Here is another thing about Hughes. He is one of five defensive players this season with a forced fumble, an interception and a defensive touchdown. But his lose didn't mean a thing because he didn't play anyway and when he did he didn't do anything. OK now I get it. Griff missed time. He blows anyway so it didn't matter. Forget about that one also because it had no impact. Don't you realize who you lose has an impact also? If the Packers lose Rodgers they are done. If they lose some G they will go on.