CrazedDogs

yeah, if he is a lock to be an All Pro level Guard, then that is not too high for an interior lineman.

that's the 9 technique.... 9 yards away from whoever has the ball.

thats it? Shit.... may as well start pumping in the noise now.

I just watched it, thanks for posting. I don't see the slow feet either, they look plenty quick to me. And in light of his vertical leap and 3 cone at the pro day, he obviously has plenty of foot speed and explosiveness. I took away a concern from this video though: it looked to me like he went to sleep out there on more than a few of those plays. I don't know if that will translate to the pros, it may not be a serious issue at the next level because he'll be challenged on every play, but in this game Ohio St. obviously felt it was a waste of time to even try to rush the passer on Scherff's side. And then late in the game you start to see him lunging a bit in pass protection, I believe not because his feet are too slow, but because he took for granted that he would easily beat his man.

7.07 in the 3 cone destroys the slow-footed criticism of Scherff.

Injuries, definitely. It counts for a lot when you know your QB will be ready play every single game.

Ah, just heard more on this. He had a concussion last season and got spooked. This makes a little more sense now.

Don't worry, you can count on me and my art degree to pull you through.

But if he isn't producing in the most important games, then why were 6.5 of his 12.5 sacks last season against PHI, DAL, and WAS? Okay, so we've established that its not true that he fails to produce in the most important games. Is the argument against him now going to change to he goes to sleep in the less important games?

Is that really true though? Last time I saw a real statistical study on player longevity, it found that NFL players live slightly longer on average. In that context, because they're living longer, higher rates of dementia and chronic pain are to be expected. Here's a take from slate.com: http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2014/09/nfl_players_life_spans_and_domestic_violence_rates_could_pro_football_actually.html

Thanks guys, I didn't know there had been a change. Used to be you could keep franchising a guy, but only if you paid him 20% more than the prior year, or something prohibitive like that.

I don't know, only game I've recently seen of JJ Watt was when he disappeared against the Giants last season. So much for padding his stats against weak teams, as much as it pains me to admit it....

well, maybe you've convinced me. To just boil this down, you're saying that its an indictment of his skills that he gets sacks against lesser competition, but not against divisional opponents when it matters most?

I have a feeling we'll find out what his market value is after this season. $14 million is high enough, no chance they pay the franchise amount two seasons in row. Next season it would jump to like $17 million, which I would absolutely agree is way too much.

sacks come in bunches. There are great pass rushers who go several games with no sacks, thats just how it is. You can't just be like, 'well, he got all his sacks in three, four, five or whatever games, so they don't count'. Bullshit, of course they count. Better proof is in the tackle figures. Defensive ends just do not get involved with that many plays. You've got JJ Watt and JPP. Thats it. Ten sacks and 75+ tackles?.... holy shit, that isn't just a top ten defensive end, that guy is an All Pro. If done for several seasons, that is a Hall of Famer.

wouldn't the league minimum be a fraction of $14 million? Hell, $1 would be a fraction of $14 million.

oh, I remember the thread, I reviewed everyone you named, person by person. And I have no idea what made you think most of those folks belonged on the list. There may be four better defensive linemen in the NFL. JPP's statistical impact leaps off the page.

no, you didn't.

Yeah, the hard shell helmet was the worst possible idea for the sport. It takes kids about five minutes with the helmet on to realize that it can be used as a weapon. But I think back to the countless hours of playing full contact football without pads with friends... well, with no helmet on, we sure kept our heads up when we tackled. No way around it, without the armor, good form happened instinctively.

I agree with the soft helmet theory. No problem with letting my kid play football though, if he wants to. I've seen a couple collisions on the soccer field that were worse than anything I saw in youth football. I've seen a kid hit with a baseball bat before, broke a couple bones. Heard of a guy dying at a girl's softball game when he got hit with a foul ball. Bad shit can happen in any sport, but the only thing worse than playing is not playing. .

And yet how many of us go skiing, or ride motorcycles?

Jake Long, man, what happened to him? Wasn't that long ago he was in the running for best LT in the NFL.

I don't get it. Okay, so maybe not everybody plays for the love of the game. But then why play all those years in youth leagues, high school, then college, only to quit just before you actually make some money you can fall back on? All that risk for all those years, and now he's bailing on it? Maybe there's some issue there we don't know about, but at face value, I don't know what the hell Borland (or anybody who retires on a rookie contract) is thinking.

nah, I understood. I just can't recall them ever having a beef.

Yeah, pdub had been pushing him over the edge for years. LOL.