Morgan Fox tears ACL

[Memento]

I feel for Fox. He's already established himself as a rotational piece with the possibility of being more at OLB...but tears his ACL. That's just an unfortunate break for the guy.

Hope he comes back strong next year.

 

[LACHAMP46]

There's no structures on the human body, visible to the eye that indicate most of the things necessary to play football. Not that I'm against Fox at all, but big calves aren't as indicative of the ability to play football as say, play recognition, reaction time, and technique.

Just a cue for durability in my eyes....

Same as muscle tone is a cue for power and strength...

and

I'm secure enough to look at anyones anatomy....

Top heavy guys...guys with smaller legs...don't do it for me in the trenches...

Performance can be affected by many other factors...motivation...COACHING...a host of things...

Structure just tells what a guy COULD do...if properly motivated...and coached up.

 

[1maGoh]

Just a cue for durability in my eyes....

Same as muscle tone is a cue for power and strength...

and

I'm secure enough to look at anyones anatomy....

Top heavy guys...guys with smaller legs...don't do it for me in the trenches...

Performance can be affected by many other factors...motivation...COACHING...a host of things...

Structure just tells what a guy COULD do...if properly motivated...and coached up.

Now there's an interesting take. Structure only tells you about potential, whole a time of things that aren't structure actually dictate what happens on the field.

I think at the end of the day (season, postseason, etc) what we're all interested in is actual performance. Did they play well, did they win? Given that structure only tells us what might be, and many other things dictate what actually is (I swear I'm not trying to be a jerk, genuine interest) I have to ask why you focus so much on structure.

 

[LACHAMP46]

I think at the end of the day (season, postseason, etc) what we're all interested in is actual performance. Did they play well, did they win? Given that structure only tells us what might be, and many other things dictate what actually is (I swear I'm not trying to be a jerk, genuine interest) I have to ask why you focus so much on structure.

Structure usually tells...what you can do....it's not a surprise to me, that Fox is a sturdy...and powerful player...even tho he wasn't drafted...same with Westbrooks...same with Donald...same with Brockers...those guys...when looked at collectively "look" like powerful football players...adding in some measureables like speed and strength...you have a package.

Fox played well....it's a reason...part of it is his natural strength and power...which his body shows he's built for...

Like I say, you can't always say always...and never say never...but I rarely see little legs, or skinny arms..or vice versa....WORK...in the NFL.

You draft for a...a type...OL's should look like this...DL"s should look like that...QB's should look a certain way...RB's should....you also put into consideration their play...with lower round guys, guys that have played against inferior opponents, you have to project performance...because they haven't played against a bunch of NFL talent...probably none.
No team is gonna be built on a bunch of guys that were excellent in college...or played lights out...after round 3...you have to project...the best way is physical appearance....then measureables....and try to coach these individuals up to fill out a 53 man roster...

Hey man....I like questions...never look like a jerk with any question....some of these guys in here try to "stifle" real discussion....if you don't go with their narratives, you're the enemy...nope not me...I like explaining or trying to clarify where I'm going with a thought...so some can understand...I've played, coached, and watched a bunch of football...I've watched the Rams since the 70's.....I've SEEN better Rams players benched for lesser players since 1975 and wondered, "why?" James Harris being the first....

Watch the game...notice who does what play in...play out....rewind is your friend...

Matter of fact, I was watching the NO v Rams game...just the 1st Quarter.....and I saw a bunch of stuff...just in rewinding...and watching...I could bust a bunch of reply records...but, I'll just let the season play out...

now...onto these other guys....I got a bunch of...shall I say...replies to get too...LOL

 

[1maGoh]

Structure usually tells...what you can do....it's not a surprise to me, that Fox is a sturdy...and powerful player...even tho he wasn't drafted...same with Westbrooks...same with Donald...same with Brockers...those guys...when looked at collectively "look" like powerful football players...adding in some measureables like speed and strength...you have a package.

Fox played well....it's a reason...part of it is his natural strength and power...which his body shows he's built for...

Like I say, you can't always say always...and never say never...but I rarely see little legs, or skinny arms..or vice versa....WORK...in the NFL.

You draft for a...a type...OL's should look like this...DL"s should look like that...QB's should look a certain way...RB's should....you also put into consideration their play...with lower round guys, guys that have played against inferior opponents, you have to project performance...because they haven't played against a bunch of NFL talent...probably none.
No team is gonna be built on a bunch of guys that were excellent in college...or played lights out...after round 3...you have to project...the best way is physical appearance....then measureables....and try to coach these individuals up to fill out a 53 man roster...

Hey man....I like questions...never look like a jerk with any question....some of these guys in here try to "stifle" real discussion....if you don't go with their narratives, you're the enemy...nope not me...I like explaining or trying to clarify where I'm going with a thought...so some can understand...I've played, coached, and watched a bunch of football...I've watched the Rams since the 70's.....I've SEEN better Rams players benched for lesser players since 1975 and wondered, "why?" James Harris being the first....

Watch the game...notice who does what play in...play out....rewind is your friend...

Matter of fact, I was watching the NO v Rams game...just the 1st Quarter.....and I saw a bunch of stuff...just in rewinding...and watching...I could bust a bunch of reply records...but, I'll just let the season play out...

now...onto these other guys....I got a bunch of...shall I say...replies to get too...LOL

Why would looks be there very first thing used to evaluate if it only give you a theoretical measure of potential?

It seems like looking at someone's demonstrated skill and ability would give a better clue to how they will actually perform then just looking at their physical appearance. "Looks can be deceiving" is an age old adage after all.

Past performance is not an guarantee of future results, but it's the best indicator anyone has, for pretty much everything. At least that's the way I see it. I think behavioral science backs that up as well. (Any behavioral scientists in the crowd?)

I also like how you say Fox is sturdy when he's injured right now. Maybe he needs to bend with the wind more than stand against it. There's another saying about trees to that effect, not I don't remember it now.

 

[LACHAMP46]

It seems like looking at someone's demonstrated skill and ability would give a better clue to how they will actually perform then just looking at their physical appearance. "Looks can be deceiving" is an age old adage after all.

That's true...past performance is a great indicator...but not the only one...it doesn't explain the countless all-americans that wash out in the pros...
If you demonstrate skill versus inferior competition...what are you really looking at? A physically superior player versus inferior competition. Which is sure to change once they reach the pros...All the pros are good....it's something more...that determines success...physical stature...metrix...measureables...are a good start.

Past performance is not an guarantee of future results, but it's the best indicator anyone has, for pretty much everything. At least that's the way I see it. I think behavioral science backs that up as well. (Any behavioral scientists in the crowd?)

There are many indicators...past performance is used when players face equal competition...when the competition is at a disadvantage, what do you use then?
There are 7 rounds...around 32 players per round (more if you consider comp. picks)..almost 250 players....how can you tell if a Morgan Fox can compete at the pro level? Not just from where he came from? Colorado St.....How can you tell if he could compete vs a player from say, Notre Dame? You look at his size...his speed.

I also like how you say Fox is sturdy when he's injured right now

football is a 100% injury game....everyone gets hurt....only the lucky ones not seriously.

 

[1maGoh]

That's true...past performance is a great indicator...but not the only one...it doesn't explain the countless all-americans that wash out in the pros...
If you demonstrate skill versus inferior competition...what are you really looking at? A physically superior player versus inferior competition. Which is sure to change once they reach the pros...All the pros are good....it's something more...that determines success...physical stature...metrix...measureables...are a good start.

There are many indicators...past performance is used when players face equal competition...when the competition is at a disadvantage, what do you use then?
There are 7 rounds...around 32 players per round (more if you consider comp. picks)..almost 250 players....how can you tell if a Morgan Fox can compete at the pro level? Not just from where he came from? Colorado St.....How can you tell if he could compete vs a player from say, Notre Dame? You look at his size...his speed.

football is a 100% injury game....everyone gets hurt....only the lucky ones not seriously.

Personally, and I'm not an expert, I'd look at demonstrated skill and technique, scheme fit, measurables (for comparison when looking at one on one matchups, looking up the opposing players measurables), and quality of coaching. And if so all that long before I'd look at how big a guys calves are.

Probably injury history before anatomy too. Even big guys can be injury prone, or just mentally weak.

NFL cuts are littered with big guys who look the part but actually can't play and rosters are full of suboptimally built players who show that they can play. The reverse is also true but that, to me, just shows that you can't go by looks alone (or preferably at all).

If one guy doesn't look the part but shows he can play, and another guy looks the part but hasn't shown he can play consistently, who do you keep?

 

[LACHAMP46]

And if so all that long before I'd look at how big a guys calves are.

Not just calves...thigh bone connected to the...
total package...and yeah...I'd look first at measureables...then body type...I'm not grabbing 5'10 QB's....5'9 wr's...or for a current example. 6'2 centers....not doing it...no matter how good they play in college...

If one guy doesn't look the part but shows he can play, and another guy looks the part but hasn't shown he can play consistently, who do you keep?

If a guy can't play...regardless of size...I'm not getting him...

If I have a choice...I'm grabbing the biggest guys that can play...big calves...all that.....we just drafted Myers....unknown...ahead of many heralded players...from bigger schools...guess why?

He fits a proto-type...with SIZE...SPEED...and other things...Same with the injured guy from Louisville..Young...grabbed him in the 6th or 7th...and he has a serious injury history...why?

Because he has prototypical Size....and measurables you can't teach....you are born with.

 

[1maGoh]

Not just calves...thigh bone connected to the...
total package...and yeah...I'd look first at measureables...then body type...I'm not grabbing 5'10 QB's....5'9 wr's...or for a current example. 6'2 centers....not doing it...no matter how good they play in college...
If a guy can't play...regardless of size...I'm not getting him...

If I have a choice...I'm grabbing the biggest guys that can play...big calves...all that.....we just drafted Myers....unknown...ahead of many heralded players...from bigger schools...guess why?

He fits a proto-type...with SIZE...SPEED...and other things...Same with the injured guy from Louisville..Young...grabbed him in the 6th or 7th...and he has a serious injury history...why?

Because he has prototypical Size....and measurables you can't teach....you are born with.

Size and measurables can also be a hindrance. A lot of big guys I know, when playing sports or combat athletics, will tell me that they don't really try that hard and they don't practice technique because they're bigger and/or faster so they don't have to.

That's how I suspect guys like G Rob lose out on the NFL. The only people that wanted him were the coaching staff that couldn't get the team to .500. That says a lot to me. When the only people that want you are the ones who can't win... That's an indictment.

Obviously size+speed+ability is the best combination, but those are the top 10 draft pick guys. Everyone else is two of three. I'll take ability and either/or, rather than size, speed but no ability. Sometimes ability alone can out do size and speed, even if the other guy has size speed and some ability. Size and a crap ton of snotty is more capable to me than all three on mediocre amounts.

 

[LACHAMP46]

That's how I suspect guys like G Rob lose out on the NFL. The only people that wanted him were the coaching staff that couldn't get the team to .500. That says a lot to me. When the only people that want you are the ones who can't win... That's an indictment.

Whatever is wrong with G-Rob....isn't measureable. It's inside....

Obviously size+speed+ability is the best combination, but those are the top 10 draft pick guys. Everyone else is two of three. I'll take ability and either/or, rather than size, speed but no ability. Sometimes ability alone can out do size and speed, even if the other guy has size speed and some ability. Size and a crap ton of snotty is more capable to me than all three on mediocre amounts.

That sounds good...but typically the most physically talented roster has an edge....and wins.

 

[nighttrain]

Whatever is wrong with G-Rob....isn't measureable. It's inside....

inside is correct, he does not want to play in the NFL, just wants the money and to rap, as in being a Rapper..
he's an asshole
train

 

[1maGoh]

Whatever is wrong with G-Rob....isn't measureable. It's inside....

That sounds good...but typically the most physically talented roster has an edge....and wins.

I think that's the problem with using measurables. What's wrong with him isn't measurable, but I bet it's detectable.

Not that anyone has time, but I'd love to see a breakdown of the most physically gifted teams along their win-loss record. I bet it's a statistically insignificant factor. I mean, you told us once that Fisher assembled great teams because they looked like winners coming off the bus. They didn't win though.

 

[Mackeyser]

There's no structures on the human body, visible to the eye that indicate most of the things necessary to play football. Not that I'm against Fox at all, but big calves aren't as indicative of the ability to play football as say, play recognition, reaction time, and technique. Not everyone can do those things at the same level even with the same physical attributes.

I try not to spend much time examining other dudes' anatomy, not that there's anything wing with that.

I'm more of a performance guy.

Performance=performance

Edit for being less of a douche bag.

I used to spend hours...literally hours...looking at early Arnold pictures. His symmetry and size were mesmerizing.

To this day, I think his 20something physique... was the male ideal.

@LACHAMP46 has a point. If you consider Roger Saffold, he was structurally defective in his shoulders and it turns out the repairs have truly improved him. Some guys can't be improved because there isn't a surgical repair that improves the situation (guys with suspect ACLs come to mind or those more prone to concussion)

I dunno that you can see that, tho. Most of the structurally deficient stuff is only stuff you can see in surgery or with a scan, I think.

I could be totally wrong.

Not about Arnold, tho.

 

[1maGoh]

I used to spend hours...literally hours...looking at early Arnold pictures. His symmetry and size were mesmerizing.

To this day, I think his 20something physique... was the male ideal.

@LACHAMP46 has a point. If you consider Roger Saffold, he was structurally defective in his shoulders and it turns out the repairs have truly improved him. Some guys can't be improved because there isn't a surgical repair that improves the situation (guys with suspect ACLs come to mind or those more prone to concussion)

I dunno that you can see that, tho. Most of the structurally deficient stuff is only stuff you can see in surgery or with a scan, I think.

I could be totally wrong.

Not about Arnold, tho.

His assertion, in a nutshell, is that by visually comparing people you can tell if they are structurally sound and gauge their football performance potential.

I'm just not sure that either of those things are true. I also don't think the evidence we see before us, at a glance, bears that out. Saffold being one example, Fox being another. Structurally sturdy guys, supposedly, injured before their less physically gifted peers. But we're told to ignore that because injuries happen in football (that same logic didn't apply to the smaller guys, but hey, we can ignore that for now).

I find his whole premise and the logic he's using very interesting. And we're having a civil conversation. It's fun.

 

[LACHAMP46]

I think that's the problem with using measurables. What's wrong with him isn't measurable, but I bet it's detectable.

Not that anyone has time, but I'd love to see a breakdown of the most physically gifted teams along their win-loss record. I bet it's a statistically insignificant factor. I mean, you told us once that Fisher assembled great teams because they looked like winners coming off the bus. They didn't win though.

That would be something....

Fisher teams....didn't win...maybe not enough....but they were on the precipice....the edge...of becoming winners....it's displayed in how quickly a former team of his....the Rams...was turned into a winner.

A couple of teams today that physically look good...the Jags....The Raiders....the Chiefs...the Steelers....and the Eagles...

Bigger linemen....big receivers....big corners...big receivers.

His assertion, in a nutshell, is that by visually comparing people you can tell if they are structurally sound and gauge their football performance potential.

Not exactly....just percentages...this guy is "more likely" sorta comparisons....

sure, there are exceptions to EVERY rule....but go with the law of averages....

I like a guy at center Allen....on film....on measureables….I don't think he has what it takes to block at the pro level....do you just count him out?...NO...but if he struggles, it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[LACHAMP46]

inside is correct, he does not want to play in the NFL, just wants the money and to rap, as in being a Rapper..
he's an icehole
train

I like you train....I do....
G-Rob is on a roster....I'd bet...but I gotta save my ROD$ to make it interesting...but, I'd bet he makes the Browns...and is a starter....at LT.

I still contend, a better player...was cut (G-Rob)….and a lesser player (Brown) was retained.....and they are virtually the same players from the neck up.....while G-Rob is significantly better from the neck down.....and if those two statements are true (no real way to tell)….I'd like to know why?

 

[nighttrain]

I like you train....I do....
G-Rob is on a roster....I'd bet...but I gotta save my ROD$ to make it interesting...but, I'd bet he makes the Browns...and is a starter....at LT.

I still contend, a better player...was cut (G-Rob)….and a lesser player (Brown) was retained.....and they are virtually the same players from the neck up.....while G-Rob is significantly better from the neck down.....and if those two statements are true (no real way to tell)….I'd like to know why?

Grob had the talent to be mayhaps a better player, but not the heart, soul, and drive to make it happen
train

 

[nighttrain]

I like you train....I do....
G-Rob is on a roster....I'd bet...but I gotta save my ROD$ to make it interesting...but, I'd bet he makes the Browns...and is a starter....at LT.

I still contend, a better player...was cut (G-Rob)….and a lesser player (Brown) was retained.....and they are virtually the same players from the neck up.....while G-Rob is significantly better from the neck down.....and if those two statements are true (no real way to tell)….I'd like to know why?

Grob is in what will his 5th season, and his third team, not an all star resume
train

 

[LACHAMP46]

Grob had the talent to be mayhaps a better player, but not the heart, soul, and drive to make it happen
train

We shall see....

I've seen a bunch of players...Plunkett was the first...then later it was that other Raider QB....dude from KC...oh yeah, Gannon....well, those guys when acquired I thought were garbage...busts...then all of a sudden...new coaching...I never saw much of Plunkett before he was a Raider...I did see Gannon...and what Gannon turned into was incredible....how he wasn't a prior star???? Man...the game is weird like that.

Becoming great/good isn't always on the players....coaches mess good players up...more than heart/soul/drive....technique is a pro's friend....the man that teaches correct technique...is a guru

 

[Rainram]

Matter of fact, I was watching the NO v Rams game...just the 1st Quarter.....and I saw a bunch of stuff...just in rewinding...and watching...I could bust a bunch of reply records...but, I'll just let the season play out...

I’m curious what you meant here. What’d you see? And what do you mean by you’ll just let the season play out?