PDA

View Full Version : Is experience a bad thing?


Bengals1690
05-14-2007, 10:14 AM
Well, Ive been on this forum a while now, and i have noticed arguments all the time like "he had a great coach in college, which was why he was sucessful". But isnt that good? Why would that be a knock on something? People that have played one year are getting drafted based on "potential" other than based on whether they perfrom at over a high level period of time.

Ex.-

Lawrence Timmons vs. Paul Poszluzny (sp?)-
Poz put up really good numbers at penn state consistently. In 2004- he had 104 tackles, in and injhury riddled 2005, he had 116 tackles. in 2006, he put up 116 tackles. All of these numbers are impressive. He led a pretty solid defense for the Nittany Lions.

Timmons put up these numbers in the same time- 12 in 2004, 35 in 20005, and 79 in 2006. but he has more "potential". I dont get how a proven performer can get drafted 17 spots lower than someone that didnt produce consistently at the same position. Paul has better measurables, at 6'2 238, than Timmons at 6'0, 234. Paul also had a better combine. He ran his 40 at 4.58. Timmon's best forty was 4.63. Paul had a better 60 shuttle, Vertical, 20 shuttle, and bench press than timmons. Yet timmons has better "Potential", just because he didnt start as long as Poz.



I think staying for you senior year is a bad idea for a junior thats projected to be in the first round, at least for your draft stock and rookie contract. If Brohm had came out this year, he prolly would have been the first pick of the draft. But now, there are people hating on him left and right. If Leinart had came out after he won the Heismanm, he would most likely be a 49 right noe. BUt he stayed in school and fell to number ten. It is comical to me that things like this happen. If you look back at the number, the players with the most starting experience tend to have the besty NFL careers.

EX.

Peyton Manning- He started about 3 and a half years at tennesee, and he has had a pretty sucesful NFL career, dont you think?


Ryanh Leaf, on the other hand, started 24 games. look where he s at now.

AKili Smith- 11 starts. he couldnt cut it either.
Donavon Mcnabb- Started 45 games. hes doing pretty welll.
Joey Harring suck- 28 starts
Drunkenmiller-started 2 seasons
Culpepper- played al 4 seasons
McNair- Played all 4 years


i know there are more example, but i belive that is enough. that is why to me, experience is over potential when selecting a player. DO any of you agree?

OhioState
05-14-2007, 11:18 AM
yeah, it is really getting out of hand how people can look at a guy and say he will be so much better than someone who played the same potition and produced more. People underestimate football inteligence and skill in favor of measureables

Bengals1690
05-14-2007, 03:08 PM
bumped for discussion...

someone447
05-14-2007, 03:18 PM
Same reason Aaron Kampmann is an "overachiever."

draftguru151
05-14-2007, 04:40 PM
If race is mentioned in this thread again it's gonna get locked.

Timmons was drafted ahead of Poz because his style of play. Timmons is a disruptor and a guy that can play in both the 3-4 and 4-3. Poz flows to the ball and is a tackler. That had nothing to do with experience really.

someone447
05-14-2007, 07:58 PM
If race is mentioned in this thread again it's gonna get locked.

Timmons was drafted ahead of Poz because his style of play. Timmons is a disruptor and a guy that can play in both the 3-4 and 4-3. Poz flows to the ball and is a tackler. That had nothing to do with experience really.

Hey, you're the one who mentioned the giant elephant in the corner, I just alluded to it.

Caddy
05-14-2007, 08:10 PM
It is all about the P word. Potential.

someone447
05-14-2007, 08:13 PM
It is all about the P word. Potential.

Did you even read the original post?

Caddy
05-14-2007, 08:18 PM
Did you even read the original post?

Do I have to agree with you?

someone447
05-14-2007, 08:20 PM
Do I have to agree with you?

His question was why is potential more important than experience... You didn't answer that question. Saying "It's all about potential" in no way answers his question, or leaves anything open to debate. You sir, fail.

Race for the Heisman
05-14-2007, 08:23 PM
It's about ceiling. I understand what you're saying, and I agree with you, but people look at a guy like Timmons, for example, and say his level of play last season was around Posluzney's level of play, but with less experience, so if he had the experience, he could have surpassed Puz's level of performance. I don't really agree with it either, but that's how people tend to see it.

As for the 'great coach' thing, its the same way. If the levels of play are roughly equivalent but one is polished and one is rough, people will appreciate what the rough diamond could look like when cut, and value it higher.

Caddy
05-14-2007, 08:25 PM
that is why to me, experience is over potential when selecting a player. DO any of you agree?

His question was why is potential more important than experience... You didn't answer that question. Saying "It's all about potential" in no way answers his question, or leaves anything open to debate. You sir, fail.

By saying that it is all about potential pretty much means I do not agree with him. I am pretty sure that answers his question buddy.

someone447
05-14-2007, 08:31 PM
I guess I need to read a little closer, I was just answering his other questions.

etk
05-14-2007, 08:34 PM
When evaluating 1st round prospects one has to consider the experience factor and it's effect on NFL success. One of the draft magazines did a detailed write-up on lack of experience and how it leads to underachieving and busting in 1st rounders. They listed recent players who started 2 years or less in college and well over half of them were extreme disappointments. There a few exceptions but the overwhelming majority struggle to find their place in camp and have to overcome major obstacles. There is no substitute for starting experience and a lot of scouts and analsysts get too creative with their "potential" talk and forget the essentials of football: hitting, technique and effort.

Potential is a wonderful aspect of scouting and the draft process but unproven inexperienced prospects are not 1st round material. The risk and cost is far too expensive.

Tim Couch is another great example to add to your list.

-black
05-14-2007, 08:48 PM
just think of the bust ratio if the Maurice Clarett ruling stood and players could leave after their freshman year in college. Imagine Percy Harvin in the 2007 NFL draft....

Jimmy
05-14-2007, 08:56 PM
in direct respons to the question: can experience be bad: no, it cant hurt
you can make a case that players who do well in college aren't likely to do well in the pro's, but underneath it all, its always a good thing.

you can't just name a dozen guys that didnt do well, that had experience, and expect the whole experience theory to be shut down, either. experience is a good thing

Bengals1690
05-14-2007, 08:57 PM
When evaluating 1st round prospects one has to consider the experience factor and it's effect on NFL success. One of the draft magazines did a detailed write-up on lack of experience and how it leads to underachieving and busting in 1st rounders. They listed recent players who started 2 years or less in college and well over half of them were extreme disappointments. There a few exceptions but the overwhelming majority struggle to find their place in camp and have to overcome major obstacles. There is no substitute for starting experience and a lot of scouts and analsysts get too creative with their "potential" talk and forget the essentials of football: hitting, technique and effort.

Potential is a wonderful aspect of scouting and the draft process but unproven inexperienced prospects are not 1st round material. The risk and cost is far too expensive.

Tim Couch is another great example to add to your list.

those were just the ones that i realy thought of at the time.

GiantRutgersFan
05-14-2007, 11:08 PM
Timmons vs Poz was riddiculous. I dont know. Timmons should have been a mid second rounder imo.


Poz simply outplayed the guy.


Timmons will probably get made into a decent player since he's on the Steelers who are a well run organization, but Poz is gonna be much better.

Mr. Stiller
05-14-2007, 11:24 PM
Timmons vs Poz was riddiculous. I dont know. Timmons should have been a mid second rounder imo.


Poz simply outplayed the guy.


Timmons will probably get made into a decent player since he's on the Steelers who are a well run organization, but Poz is gonna be much better.

Timmons is a disruptor in a Greg Lloyd mold. I'm not putting him on that Pedestal yet, but Poz doesn't have the same skillset.

Timmons could play OLB, Passrush DE, ILB, Poz would be an ILB alone in our scheme.

Tomlin said this "Great Players Defy Scheme" Timmons has the skillset and makeup of a great player. If we would've traded down or the Broncos traded up... Timmons would be in Denver right now.

I'm not taking away from Poz, he's a great linebacker, but he wasn't "Our" guy.

Tomlin saw who he wanted and got him. Timmons has time to learn behind Harrison.

Rumor has it that he'll be used in the same way as Polamalu... basically no real position as he just walks around pre-snap and then either rushes, drops in coverage or hits people.


Though Poz had better "measureables" There was a reason Timmons went round 1 and Poz round 2. Timmons has more features.. Poz is a solid covering, solid tackling blue chip guy...

Timmons is that and much much more.

Many thought Poz's best chance to be a "Great" Player was at MLB in a cover 2 scheme... Timmons could play in a cover-2, 3-4, or whatever..

Iamcanadian
05-14-2007, 11:51 PM
The Timmons/Poz comparison is a very weak one. Poz is coming off a severe injury and we have no access to how scouts view his recovery. Health concerns no doubt played a part in Poz's drop to round 2 not talent.
Two things come into play about experience. First, experience can definitely be a great indicator of future success if a player has elite skills and developes nicely over time. Second, experience can indicate nothing if a player doesn't get the proper training for a pro career. Colleges and the Pros play a completely different game and many times a player finds himself in a system that simply doesn't train him to be a pro and can take on extremely bad habits that are later very hard to break. The pros would much rather take a junior talent and develope it properly than have a player stay in a college system and then have to breal all the bad habits he developed because his college team didn't play in a system that in any way resembles a pro system.

Bengals1690
05-15-2007, 07:53 AM
Timmons is a disruptor in a Greg Lloyd mold. I'm not putting him on that Pedestal yet, but Poz doesn't have the same skillset.

Timmons could play OLB, Passrush DE, ILB, Poz would be an ILB alone in our scheme.

Tomlin said this "Great Players Defy Scheme" Timmons has the skillset and makeup of a great player. If we would've traded down or the Broncos traded up... Timmons would be in Denver right now.

I'm not taking away from Poz, he's a great linebacker, but he wasn't "Our" guy.

Tomlin saw who he wanted and got him. Timmons has time to learn behind Harrison.

Rumor has it that he'll be used in the same way as Polamalu... basically no real position as he just walks around pre-snap and then either rushes, drops in coverage or hits people.


Though Poz had better "measureables" There was a reason Timmons went round 1 and Poz round 2. Timmons has more features.. Poz is a solid covering, solid tackling blue chip guy...

Timmons is that and much much more.

Many thought Poz's best chance to be a "Great" Player was at MLB in a cover 2 scheme... Timmons could play in a cover-2, 3-4, or whatever..


timmons is not a great tackliong LB. Most of his tackles in the games i have seen he is taking people down with an arm instead of bodying up. How does that translate into the pros? I also thought a knock on him was that he wasn't good in coverage? And all this althleticism talk, but Poz has bbetter combine workouts, and better measureables. Timmons got drafteed on pure potential, he wasn't even the best LB on his team last year. Poz is a battle tested proven performer who is always around the ball. And i dont see that in timmons.

Bengals1690
05-15-2007, 07:57 AM
The Timmons/Poz comparison is a very weak one. Poz is coming off a severe injury and we have no access to how scouts view his recovery. Health concerns no doubt played a part in Poz's drop to round 2 not talent.
Two things come into play about experience. First, experience can definitely be a great indicator of future success if a player has elite skills and developes nicely over time. Second, experience can indicate nothing if a player doesn't get the proper training for a pro career. Colleges and the Pros play a completely different game and many times a player finds himself in a system that simply doesn't train him to be a pro and can take on extremely bad habits that are later very hard to break. The pros would much rather take a junior talent and develope it properly than have a player stay in a college system and then have to breal all the bad habits he developed because his college team didn't play in a system that in any way resembles a pro system.

i know, but it was the first to pop onto my head. But wasn't Paul in a 4-3 pro style defense? He always was around the ball, making tackles. Isnt that what you want in a LB? Timmons may be more "explosive" or "playmaking" on the feild, but his combine numbers sure dont show it. Ill be the first top admit i didnt see much of the guy, But one thing i did notice is bad recognition and getting to plays late. Poz has great recongition and first step. TImmons also has a hard time wrappin up the ball carrier, while paul was the best tackler in the draft.

Bengals1690
05-15-2007, 08:01 AM
just think of the bust ratio if the Maurice Clarett ruling stood and players could leave after their freshman year in college. Imagine Percy Harvin in the 2007 NFL draft....

it would be through the roof. players dont get it. They think they can get rich quick, so they leave early. Just imagine how many good players there would be in the NBA if players didnt skip college or go to school for one year. Experience and performing at a high level consistently is usually the best indicator of pro potential. Take Akili Smith. He played a whole 11 games in college. He was spectacular there. He went number 3 to my bengals. Where is he now?

bored of education
05-15-2007, 09:49 AM
It's not about the amount of experience, it has to do wiht the progression. If somone was nasty two straight years but showed no progression, thethoughts of their potential peaking surfaces. E.g. BradyQuinn, Poz, sorta

Bengals1690
05-15-2007, 10:15 AM
It's not about the amount of experience, it has to do wiht the progression. If somone was nasty two straight years but showed no progression, thethoughts of their potential peaking surfaces. E.g. BradyQuinn, Poz, sorta

that makes alot of sense. But i dont understand how thatcan be a knock on plalyers. Especially since poz was playing throuogh an injury this year.

bored of education
05-15-2007, 10:22 AM
Yeha, I think Poz might be a case where the guy is comming off an injury and still put up great numbers...that has to be progression in some form.

BlindSite
05-15-2007, 06:17 PM
What you'll find is a combination of both. The best GMs nowadays have a guys combine numbers and his athleticism on the same page with work ethic and character.

Then they've got number grading systems of whether or not a guy's a scheme fit or whether they've got a lot of experience and they're an overachiever or if they're inexperienced but have a higher ceiling.

A lot of guys might drop but it won't be because of experience or lack of, I think it'll be something else. Pouz might've dropped because teams felt other players were better scheme fits, or could be as productive but have a higher upside.

skinzzfan25
05-15-2007, 09:06 PM
Landry was a 4 year starter at LSU. Let's find out lol.

I think if anything it can only be better for him. Might be different at QB, RB, and LB though.

DECA
05-17-2007, 08:49 PM
Poz may have put up those numbers because, well he attends Linebacker U. The rest of the Defense was good, which freed him up to make plays consistently. Timmons did not have the talent around him that Poz had.

giant73zuma
05-18-2007, 12:31 AM
one time where experience can hurt stock is if you were a three or four year starter at running back and had a lot of careers. People will question "how much tread is left on the tires?" or "does he have too much milage on him already?"

I think the timmons/poz comparsion is a little off because i think that he dropped into the second because of his knee more than anything else.

this speaks more to anderson and carriker
carriker was more experienced, bigger, stronger, and faster but went later

Bengals1690
05-18-2007, 10:26 AM
one time where experience can hurt stock is if you were a three or four year starter at running back and had a lot of careers. People will question "how much tread is left on the tires?" or "does he have too much milage on him already?"

I think the timmons/poz comparsion is a little off because i think that he dropped into the second because of his knee more than anything else.

this speaks more to anderson and carriker
carriker was more experienced, bigger, stronger, and faster but went later

that is a good one, but that was the first one that came to mind.

Bengals1690
05-18-2007, 10:28 AM
Poz may have put up those numbers because, well he attends Linebacker U. The rest of the Defense was good, which freed him up to make plays consistently. Timmons did not have the talent around him that Poz had.

fsu has had more NFL pro linebackers latley, and has a constant flow of talent. PSU's defense was good, but when a line backer is the third worst linebacker on the team, he doesnt need to be takin with the 15th pick. At least in my opinion.

Nightmares Win 6-0
05-18-2007, 11:52 AM
if we're talking about your new girlfriend, then yes, too much experience is a bad thing...

speaking generally, as it refers to prospects, experience is not a bad thing...the lone exception to this would be a RB who is ran into the ground by his college coach (think back to the benson vs brown vs williams debate from a couple of years ago)...i think you're confusing experience as being the sole reflector of talent, whereas you're not taking into account that there are players that can be buried behind upperclassmen on a depth chart...

Bengals1690
05-18-2007, 03:52 PM
if we're talking about your new girlfriend, then yes, too much experience is a bad thing...

speaking generally, as it refers to prospects, experience is not a bad thing...the lone exception to this would be a RB who is ran into the ground by his college coach (think back to the benson vs brown vs williams debate from a couple of years ago)...i think you're confusing experience as being the sole reflector of talent, whereas you're not taking into account that there are players that can be buried behind upperclassmen on a depth chart...

I am wondering how a proven performer can get taken over someone who somehow has more "potential" but has never even came close to his prduction.

draftguru151
05-18-2007, 04:12 PM
I am wondering how a proven performer can get taken over someone who somehow has more "potential" but has never even came close to his prduction.

Because college production doesn't reflect NFL ability.

Simple example, two guys from two years ago. Which would you prefer?

1,900 yards and 16 TDs on 308 carries.

or

911 yards with 9 TDs on 187 carries.