These tweets by Gil Brandt are facepalm worthy

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
Bm_6auGCYAA9YQe.jpg


I saw these in a comment on TsT and thought they'd be enjoyed over here. I guess the old guy forgot what he said about Bridgewater.
 

Boffo97

Still legal in 17 states!
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
5,278
Name
Dave
Maybe he was trying to say that 9 1/4" hands aren't good for someone projected as a Top 10 pick, but fine for someone as a later pick.

But more likely, he f'ed up.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,798
I'm surprised, at his age, that he knows how to use twitter. But yea, the double standards are humorous.
 

Faceplant

Still celebrating Superbowl LVI
Rams On Demand Sponsor
2023 ROD Pick'em Champion
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
9,619
Gil is borderline senile at this point. Every time I hear him on Sirius, he is confused. Time to hang it up.
 

jjab360

Legend
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
6,650
One guy you were expecting to run a 4.6 runs a 4.50, that's a good time for him. Another guy you were expecting to run a 4.3 runs a 4.50, you're disappointed.

It's the same concept, not really a double standard.
 

Elmgrovegnome

Legend
Joined
Jan 23, 2013
Messages
21,906
No, it is a double standard. Nobody projected Bridgewater or Manzeils hand size. Your comparison is awful.
 

Thordaddy

Binding you with ancient logic
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
10,462
Name
Rich
No, it is a double standard. Nobody projected Bridgewater or Manzeils hand size. Your comparison is awful.
He said he "expected" as did others that Bridgewaters hand would be bigger, semantics? expected and projected mean about the same to me.

I know Gil is getting old but he's forgotten more than any of us know and still knows more.
 

jjab360

Legend
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
6,650
No, it is a double standard. Nobody projected Bridgewater or Manzeils hand size. Your comparison is awful.
Of course they did. Scouts guess, assume, and estimate pretty much every measurable there is to know about a prospect. My comparison is relevant.
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #12
Of course they did. Scouts guess, assume, and estimate pretty much every measurable there is to know about a prospect. My comparison is relevant.

They don't really estimate hand size. They have a general size they'd like to see...and if one is fine why is the other a problem?
 

HX76

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Oct 27, 2013
Messages
3,021
At least with small hands it'll make your old boy look bigger when having a tug!
 

jjab360

Legend
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
6,650
They don't really estimate hand size. They have a general size they'd like to see...and if one is fine why is the other a problem?
He said "smaller than I thought, many thought". Which means yes, he and his colleagues did actually estimate hand size. Just like they estimate prospects' 40 times. Why is a 4.50 fine for Mike Evans, but disappointing for Sammy Watkins?
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #15
He said "smaller than I thought, many thought". Which means yes, he and his colleagues did actually estimate hand size. Just like they estimate prospects' 40 times. Why is a 4.50 fine for Mike Evans, but disappointing for Sammy Watkins?

It's a double standard on hand size. Two players of the same position being graded on hand sizes which are the same. One is bad one is good. That's a double standard.

Comparing that to the 40 time is reaching at best.
 

Thordaddy

Binding you with ancient logic
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
10,462
Name
Rich
They don't really estimate hand size. They have a general size they'd like to see...and if one is fine why is the other a problem?
He didn't say it was a "problem" as much as he intimated a plus that wasn't there was a surprise and THAT Bridgewater compensated possibly by wearing gloves.
Kinda like a $500 dollar room vs. a $100 dollar room you expect one bathroom with one but not the other,maybe not a great example but who anywhere tauted Garrapolo for the first overall pick? MANY DID and some still do taut Teddy, Bridgewater is expected to go beyond the "threshold" or be considered a "threshold" talent which I'd pretty well call Garrapolo. I have strong doubts anyone drafted below G will start and flourish whereas a few above him should.
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #19
He didn't say it was a "problem" as much as he intimated a plus that wasn't there was a surprise and THAT Bridgewater compensated possibly by wearing gloves.
Kinda like a $500 dollar room vs. a $100 dollar room you expect one bathroom with one but not the other,maybe not a great example but who anywhere tauted Garrapolo for the first overall pick? MANY DID and some still do taut Teddy, Bridgewater is expected to go beyond the "threshold" or be considered a "threshold" talent which I'd pretty well call Garrapolo. I have strong doubts anyone drafted below G will start and flourish whereas a few above him should.

Yea, I'm just going to agree to disagree with @jjab360. We are arguing semantics at this point, and I don't think we can sway each other's opinions.
 

jjab360

Legend
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
6,650
It's a double standard on hand size. Two players of the same position being graded on hand sizes which are the same. One is bad one is good. That's a double standard.

Comparing that to the 40 time is reaching at best.
He never said that one hand size was bad and the other was good. Just that one was smaller than expected and the other was bigger than expected.

And you still haven't been able to explain why the 40 time comparison isn't relevant. That's because it is.