Originally Posted by RealSNR:
I remember having a bizzarely effective short yardage defense for the first couple years of Sutton, particularly in 2015.
Then it all kinda went kablooey when Hali got old, Houston got injured and struggled in his recovery, and... well, you know the rest.
There was a game where the defense face raped the seahawks on like 4 4th and shorts then Jamaal went wild to put them away. I believe it was the year after they wont the SB. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chris Meck:
um, okay, but...I mean, that's basically what it is.
Sorry I was just joking to make a point that RAS isn't a new invention. It is simply an aggregate tool for the ht/wt/speed/strength/agility/explosion that have always been measured and valued (or overvalued). Tape matters more, and always has. [Reply]
Shorter guy is clearly more athletic. The other guy is just taller.
Did you need a 'RAS' to point that out for you? I feel like a tape measure would have sufficed.
The RAS says the shorter guy is a lesser athlete - he isn't. He's a slightly shorter one and that's all.
For the same reason Calvin Austin isn't going to be better than Calvin Johnson.
I mean, imagine if Player 1 had wear a 25lb vest and go through testing. Their athleticism is relative to their size, and vice versa. It's just a tool, it doesn't mean everything.
But your size absolutely matters. Otherwise the league would be populated with DeAnthony Thomas clones. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
I've never looked at RAS at all, but in your example is it about height or weight? I think it's legitimately more impressive when a guy who weighs 25 pounds more has similar athletic performance.
A little bit of weight but substantially more to do with height.
Take 'Tall Guy' there and make him 6'1'', 200 lbs and his RAS drops to 9.72. Make him a 6'4'' stringbean at 195 and he's 9.85, he's at 9.92 at 215.
So messing with weight can swing you maybe .05 points here and there, but height can give you .2 or more of a swing.
Like I said, RAS is more concerned with height than it is athleticism.
It's a stupid metric. It's an ESPECIALLY stupid metric for LBs. [Reply]
Originally Posted by saphojunkie:
For the same reason Calvin Austin isn't going to be better than Calvin Johnson.
I mean, imagine if Player 1 had wear a 25lb vest and go through testing. Their athleticism is relative to their size, and vice versa. It's just a tool, it doesn't mean everything.
But your size absolutely matters. Otherwise the league would be populated with DeAnthony Thomas clones.
Then don't call it an 'athletic score'.
And again, we're not talking Calvin Johnson vs. Calvin Austin here. I have one guy that's 6'4'' and a clearly inferior athlete to a guy who's 6'1'' and a very good physical specimen in his own right.
It uses height as a damn multiplier of all the other athletic indices and then people act like it's some composite breakdown of athleticism. That's just silly. It's not. Better athletes get lower scores than taller ones all the time. [Reply]
I pointed this out in another thread, but the RAS for Pickens was higher than Moore but only proved that Pickens was taller. Moore was superior in every other metric that was listed.
I’m sure someone can find that comparison. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Then don't call it an 'athletic score'.
And again, we're not talking Calvin Johnson vs. Calvin Austin here. I have one guy that's 6'4'' and a clearly inferior athlete to a guy who's 6'1'' and a very good physical specimen in his own right.
It uses height as a damn multiplier of all the other athletic indices and then people act like it's some composite breakdown of athleticism. That's just silly. It's not. Better athletes get lower scores than taller ones all the time.
It's a fair point - I'd like to see more position-specific grades. I think your example fails a little, because the scores are so similar that the height and weight make a HUGE impact. [Reply]
Originally Posted by smithandrew051:
I pointed this out in another thread, but the RAS for Pickens was higher than Moore but only proved that Pickens was taller. Moore was superior in every other metric that was listed.
I’m sure someone can find that comparison.
Yup.
I only had to see people using RAS for like 3 days to start to question it's value and then after another week or so I recognized how thoroughly worthless it was because examples like that just kept popping up.
It's FAR more worthless than PFF and other stuff that people love ragging on around here.
It's just the cool new shorthand from a website that looks like it was built in 1996. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Then don't call it an 'athletic score'.
And again, we're not talking Calvin Johnson vs. Calvin Austin here. I have one guy that's 6'4'' and a clearly inferior athlete to a guy who's 6'1'' and a very good physical specimen in his own right.
It uses height as a damn multiplier of all the other athletic indices and then people act like it's some composite breakdown of athleticism. That's just silly. It's not. Better athletes get lower scores than taller ones all the time.
Originally Posted by smithandrew051:
I pointed this out in another thread, but the RAS for Pickens was higher than Moore but only proved that Pickens was taller. Moore was superior in every other metric that was listed.
Oh snap... DJ from the Skyy Moore thread has been betrayed by DJ from the Chenal thread! [Reply]
