PWOOF!!!
Comments
-
And who might that be?FireCohen said:
Dude his last 2 years were good, what are you talking about? Not his fault his DC is an idiot an decided he should cover a guy that has almost a foot on himTequilla said:In today’s water is wet thought ...
When you know the back half of your DB class is likely full on development, adding some additional guys that fall into that category ultimately increases the odds that the 2020 DB class is passable
There are reasons why I don’t want Myles Bryant starting on a team that I think is a National Championship contender ... but if he is the depth of that team I’m not hating life -
In an athletic endeavor involving physical actions that are done more easily, more consistently or even at all with the benefit of height, height, itself, is part of the talent equation.Tequilla said:Bryant’s height will always be an issue for him ... if he was 2-3 inches taller he’d have had a ton of offers out of HS
He will also be picked 1-2 rounds later than his talent because of his height
For as much as people like to say I’m a doog, its kinda funny to me to have people act like doogs in telling me how I’m wrong
There are no "talented"5'11" centers in basketball. -
I can't think of a top 10 defense on which he'd be penciled in as a starter. Nickel/slot, sure, if there were nobody else.Houhusky said:
If he was taller/big yes he would have been better and get drafted earlier... awesome hot take...Tequilla said:Bryant’s height will always be an issue for him ... if he was 2-3 inches taller he’d have had a ton of offers out of HS
He will also be picked 1-2 rounds later than his talent because of his height
For as much as people like to say I’m a doog, its kinda funny to me to have people act like doogs in telling me how I’m wrong
Bryant, even with his height, was very good and would fit right in on a championship CFB defense as long as he isnt asked to play Safety/Striker/OLB like he was for UW because the LBs sucked.
He was a very good slot/nickel corner that was well above average in edge/run support. -
He's been a starter on a top 10 defense, you twat.creepycoug said:
I can't think of a top 10 defense on which he'd be penciled in as a starter. Nickel/slot, sure, if there were nobody else.Houhusky said:
If he was taller/big yes he would have been better and get drafted earlier... awesome hot take...Tequilla said:Bryant’s height will always be an issue for him ... if he was 2-3 inches taller he’d have had a ton of offers out of HS
He will also be picked 1-2 rounds later than his talent because of his height
For as much as people like to say I’m a doog, its kinda funny to me to have people act like doogs in telling me how I’m wrong
Bryant, even with his height, was very good and would fit right in on a championship CFB defense as long as he isnt asked to play Safety/Striker/OLB like he was for UW because the LBs sucked.
He was a very good slot/nickel corner that was well above average in edge/run support. -
I meant defense on a Top 10 team. Unit rankings don't mean anything. I'm sure he could start for UAB, San Diego State and Buffalo. JFC. I'm sure he'd find his way onto the field for the #2 defense in the country from the P12 south as well. Of course, none of us believed they were really worth a shit, but there you have it. Rankings don't lie.CallMeBigErn said:
He's been a starter on a top 10 defense, you twat.creepycoug said:
I can't think of a top 10 defense on which he'd be penciled in as a starter. Nickel/slot, sure, if there were nobody else.Houhusky said:
If he was taller/big yes he would have been better and get drafted earlier... awesome hot take...Tequilla said:Bryant’s height will always be an issue for him ... if he was 2-3 inches taller he’d have had a ton of offers out of HS
He will also be picked 1-2 rounds later than his talent because of his height
For as much as people like to say I’m a doog, its kinda funny to me to have people act like doogs in telling me how I’m wrong
Bryant, even with his height, was very good and would fit right in on a championship CFB defense as long as he isnt asked to play Safety/Striker/OLB like he was for UW because the LBs sucked.
He was a very good slot/nickel corner that was well above average in edge/run support.
A top 10 team is a different matter. Which of the following teams is he a shoe-in to start for:
-
The assumption you need to defend here is that the actions of a nickel corner in college football are ones that most of the time favor height over other attributes. There are freaks, sure, but in the real world there is a tradeoff for everything. It's the sum total of the parts that matter. If Myles Bryant could be 7'2" 320 pounds and otherwise exactly the same player that he is, would he be better? Of course! But that's not how this works. Perhaps the lack of height that is a liability at times allows him to move in ways that made him the spread-killing nickel corner and safety that he was? Who knows.creepycoug said:
In an athletic endeavor involving physical actions that are done more easily, more consistently or even at all with the benefit of height, height, itself, is part of the talent equation.Tequilla said:Bryant’s height will always be an issue for him ... if he was 2-3 inches taller he’d have had a ton of offers out of HS
He will also be picked 1-2 rounds later than his talent because of his height
For as much as people like to say I’m a doog, its kinda funny to me to have people act like doogs in telling me how I’m wrong
There are no "talented"5'11" centers in basketball.
Your question of whether he would start for a top-ten team (I see three or four on which he might if given a fair shot, btw) is a much better argument, as it's a comparison of relative overall talent instead of focused on one physical attribute.
We can bitch all we want about young receivers not getting a fair shot on this team, but you'd have to be an idiot to try making the case that Bryant only started on defense due to seniority, as that defensive backfield had two true freshmen starting on it this year. Guys that Bryant has kept off the field the last two seasons are 6'2" Keith Taylor and 6'3" Dominique Hampton. He also kept slightly bigger 4-star corner and new hotness Elijah Molden on the bench for a few years. This happened because the coaches working with them thought he was--as an overall package on the field--better. -
That's not my assumption so I needn't defend it. Of course, twitch and hips and all that shit matter ... a lot. But every coach in the US wants length. Sure, the premium on that for nickel guys is different.1to392831weretaken said:
The assumption you need to defend here is that the actions of a nickel corner in college football are ones that most of the time favor height over other attributes. There are freaks, sure, but in the real world there is a tradeoff for everything. It's the sum total of the parts that matter. If Myles Bryant could be 7'2" 320 pounds and otherwise exactly the same player that he is, would he be better? Of course! But that's not how this works. Perhaps the lack of height that is a liability at times allows him to move in ways that made him the spread-killing nickel corner and safety that he was? Who knows.creepycoug said:
In an athletic endeavor involving physical actions that are done more easily, more consistently or even at all with the benefit of height, height, itself, is part of the talent equation.Tequilla said:Bryant’s height will always be an issue for him ... if he was 2-3 inches taller he’d have had a ton of offers out of HS
He will also be picked 1-2 rounds later than his talent because of his height
For as much as people like to say I’m a doog, its kinda funny to me to have people act like doogs in telling me how I’m wrong
There are no "talented"5'11" centers in basketball.
Your question of whether he would start for a top-ten team (I see three or four on which he might if given a fair shot, btw) is a much better argument, as it's a comparison of relative overall talent instead of focused on one physical attribute.
We can bitch all we want about young receivers not getting a fair shot on this team, but you'd have to be an idiot to try making the case that Bryant only started on defense due to seniority, as that defensive backfield had two true freshmen starting on it this year. Guys that Bryant has kept off the field the last two seasons are 6'2" Keith Taylor and 6'3" Dominique Hampton. He also kept slightly bigger 4-star corner and new hotness Elijah Molden on the bench for a few years. This happened because the coaches working with them thought he was--as an overall package on the field--better.
I always assume the guys on the field are better than the guys not on the field, until it's proven otherwise (which, as we well know with some of the receivers, happens).
I don't know what the seniority argument is. That's presumably for someone else. I think Bryant is fine, but he's not a nationally elite defensive back. I don't know that he'd crack the starting lineup at Oregon. Who would he bump? -
In a discussion about Myles Bryant's height impacting the impression many have of him as a football player, you responded with "In an athletic endeavor involving physical actions that are done more easily, more consistently or even at all with the benefit of height, height, itself, is part of the talent equation.creepycoug said:That's not my assumption so I needn't defend it.
There are no "talented"5'11" centers in basketball."
Either this was a non sequitur that you typed for the fun of it, or your implication is that playing hybrid corner/safety in a base-nickel defense, as Myles Bryant does and almost certainly would at the NFL level or for any top-10 college team, is such an endeavor where height is a prerequisite for talent.
Which is exactly Teq's point. He basically stated exactly this, followed by this being the reason Bryant will be valued below his talent level. You countered by way of analogy that, in certain endeavors at least, height IS talent, or at least a prohibitively important component. To which I responded that, while this is true, one then must prove that playing Bryant's position is such an endeavor or else a point really hasn't been made. In other words, "The coaches aren't wrong about knocking Bryant for his height because coaches want height" is a tautological argument.creepycoug said:Of course, twitch and hips and all that shit matter ... a lot. But every coach in the US wants length. Sure, the premium on that for nickel guys is different.
This was me just trying to head that argument off that pass. My point was that, barring some kind of criticism of the staff's choice of playing him, Bryant has already proven to be better than players much taller and more highly rated than him. I think if he were given a fair chance at a top-10 program, I don't see why it's impossible he would do the same there. Hell, Ern's point that he did, indeed, start on a top-10 defense shouldn't be so casually dismissed.creepycoug said:I always assume the guys on the field are better than the guys not on the field, until it's proven otherwise (which, as we well know with some of the receivers, happens).
I don't know what the seniority argument is. That's presumably for someone else. I think Bryant is fine, but he's not a nationally elite defensive back. I don't know that he'd crack the starting lineup at Oregon. Who would he bump?
And I watched exactly one play of Oregon football this year, on the shitter at Home Depot, so I can't answer that last question.
-
Nickel/Slot is a starter for nearly all teams these days...creepycoug said:
I can't think of a top 10 defense on which he'd be penciled in as a starter. Nickel/slot, sure, if there were nobody else.Houhusky said:
If he was taller/big yes he would have been better and get drafted earlier... awesome hot take...Tequilla said:Bryant’s height will always be an issue for him ... if he was 2-3 inches taller he’d have had a ton of offers out of HS
He will also be picked 1-2 rounds later than his talent because of his height
For as much as people like to say I’m a doog, its kinda funny to me to have people act like doogs in telling me how I’m wrong
Bryant, even with his height, was very good and would fit right in on a championship CFB defense as long as he isnt asked to play Safety/Striker/OLB like he was for UW because the LBs sucked.
He was a very good slot/nickel corner that was well above average in edge/run support. -
Dumb analogy. There have been plenty of good DB’s in the 5’8”-5’9” range.creepycoug said:
In an athletic endeavor involving physical actions that are done more easily, more consistently or even at all with the benefit of height, height, itself, is part of the talent equation.Tequilla said:Bryant’s height will always be an issue for him ... if he was 2-3 inches taller he’d have had a ton of offers out of HS
He will also be picked 1-2 rounds later than his talent because of his height
For as much as people like to say I’m a doog, its kinda funny to me to have people act like doogs in telling me how I’m wrong
There are no "talented"5'11" centers in basketball.
No doubt that height and size matters, but I also watched at least most of every UW game while Myles Bryant was there and he was a productive player that made plays. Like I said, he’s not a guy that could or should be the best starting DB on a natty contender but there is no shame in him being one of your top 5. Myles Bryant wasn’t a reason why UW wasn’t winning big games the last few years.
