>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.

problem is, that only really works IF they're similar draft prospects. because the idea that stars and potential stars get better treatment than fringe players is...ZOMG SO NEW.

>The player comparison is not the POINT of the article. The
>player comparison REINFORCES the point that whatever

really? because the entire article is comparing their stats. THE ENTIRE THING. it all falls apart if they're different quality prospects.

>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.

bullshit. Sam was a low-end draft pick. go look at the pre-draft predictions. and this is irrelevant, becase the article doesn't start from the premise that Ray >>> Sam but Ray isn't >>>>>>> Sam. it's Ray is roughly = to Sam.

>Again, you are dismissing someone's professional potential off
>of combine stats alone.

nope. and numbers from when he was at Mizzou. And professional draft scout reports. And knowing that the numbers presented in the article are all manipulated and bullshit.

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.

but that's not the point of the article, because if it were, it wouldn't make stupid ass comparisons to Shane Ray. christ.

>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.

ok, so Ray is a 1st rounder. got it.

>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.

SO THEY'RE NOT SIMILAR. christ, that's all i ever was pointing out.

The worst part? Sam WAS projected as a 2-4th
>round pick before he came out.

by ONE site (we've been through this roughly 5 times on this board. and if you look, I'm 100% on the Sam side of the debate. except i don't like bad comparisons and bad use of numbers. which was all i ever fucking pointed out.

>are the same prospect. It's about how similar prospects had
>two completely different outcomes based on their "off the
>field" issues.

even if I accept that Sam was a 3rd round prospect, THAT'S NOT SIMILAR TO A CONSENSUS 1st ROUNDER.


-----------
Its 2014...there are computers in glasses and people stunt after hitting the ball far. Get over it. -Cenario
It's only funny till someone gets mad. Then it's hilarious