>a post with the subtitle: "The similarities between Michael
>Sam and Shane Ray - former teammates and defensive ends at
>Missouri - are striking. Distractions? Ray has a drug charge
>and Sam is gay. Ray was a first-round pick while Sam went in
>the last round. 1 + 1 = 2."

yes, because it is looking at how the NFL is willing to deal with their respective "off the field issues" and how that weighs in on draft stock/opportunity in the NFL. This IS indeed the point of the article.

>the post that says that they "performed nearly identically."
>or "Yet the wide discrepancy between the draft positions of
>these two men does not reflect their minuscule differences in
>size, strength, speed and college production."
>
>you're right. it's not saying they're really similar quality
>draft prospects at all. nowhere does it say that.


The player comparison is not the POINT of the article. The player comparison REINFORCES the point that whatever difference in them as prospects (which isn't as large as one might think) does not translate to the disparity of their draft selection. Ray is a legit 1st rounder. But Sam was a legit 3rd rounder at WORST.

>the post thinks its clever because it saw some numbers were
>similar, but either the author of it is mathematically
>illiterate, knows nothing about football/drafts, or both. i
>think it's both. it's a shame, because this only hurts the
>argument--it's far too easy for someone who is homophobic and
>knows football (or stats) to dismiss the claims in that post
>because he makes apples to oranges comparisons and uses
>percentages to make differences that are meaningful (it's only
>a 10% difference! that doesn't matter--if 10% is the
>difference between a tackle and a missed tackle, 10% is
>enough).

Again, you are dismissing someone's professional potential off of combine stats alone. He never got a shot to prove it on the field. PLENTY of prospects with less than stellar measureables got drafted in early rounds this year. And yes, some players with great measureables went drafted in low rounds this year. But same had enough measureables to be selected earlier, and certainly enough on field production to warrant a legit shot at making a roster.

>the similarities aren't striking. They were CLEARLY at
>different levels as pro prospects based purely on how they
>performed in college and how they performed at the combine and
>pro days.

Listen to how you sound: "They were CLEARLY at different levels as pro prospects based purely on how they performed in college and how they performed at the combine and pro days." Naw, with the eye test, had they play on the same team and entered the same draft, Ray would be a legit first rounder. You would not then say that Sam was a 7th rounder. I see a clear difference is talent, but maybe a 1st round talent vs a 3rd round talent. The worst part? Sam WAS projected as a 2-4th round pick before he came out. Again, it's not about if they are the same prospect. It's about how similar prospects had two completely different outcomes based on their "off the field" issues.